Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Post Office Dispute

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the loss of revenue suffered by the Post Office as the result of the strike by Post Office staffs.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the estimated loss of revenue to the Post Office resulting from the postal workers' strike.

Mr. Stallard: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the estimated cost to Post Office revenues of the dispute involving Post Office workers.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I would refer to the reply I gave on 1st February to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).—[Vol. 810, c. 257–8.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my right hon. Friend explain how an answer given on that date can give the up-to-date figure?

Mr. Chataway: The figure given by the Post Office was £500,000 a day. That is still the Post Office's estimate. From to-day, in view of the increase in the postal tariff, the loss will probably amount to something of the order of £700,000.

Mr. Stallard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office has already lost enough money to have afforded an extra 3 per cent. on the existing claim? Is he further aware that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to a settlement may be the employers' refusal to concede a major change in the incremental scales?

Mr. Chataway: I do not think that the House will wish me to be drawn into a discussion of the details of the dispute, since talks are going on at the moment between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Board, and I have no wish to say anything to prejudice those discussions.

Mr. Ridsdale: In general terms, can my right hon. Friend say what has been the cost of the Post Office strike to the balance of payments?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir, not without notice of the question.

Mr. Barnes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the additional level of dialled telephone calls is as a result of the strike, and can he make any estimate of the additional revenue that that might be producing?

Mr. Chataway: There has been a substantial increase and, in consequence, there will be an increased revenue. With that, there will also have been increased costs. But there is no doubt that, on balance, the Post Office has benefited.

Mail (Concessionary Traffic)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he has received the report from the Post Office Users' National Council on the operational problems involved in dealing with concessionary traffic.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. Any such report would in any case be a matter for the Post Office in the first instance.

Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increased postal charges weigh heavily on charities which rely on the sale of Christmas cards, for example, and which, until recently, enjoyed a concessionary rate? Is he also aware that the Post Office Users' National Council was carrying out an experimental survey during the Christmas period to see


whether concessionary traffic was possible? Will the right hon. Gentleman contact the Council to see what steps can be taken to provide some relief next year?

Mr. Chataway: I am aware that the Post Office and the Post Office Users' National Council are studying the problem, but it is a matter for the Post Office Board.

Stereophonic Broadcasting

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent consultations have taken place between his Department and the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the extension of stereophonic broadcasting.

Mr. Chataway: The B.B.C. tells me that by March, 1974, it hopes to extend the area covered by the existing transmissions of stereophonic broadcasting to include Central Scotland and both sides of the Bristol Channel. During the same period it expects to install additional equipment to make possible stereo broadcasting on Radio-2 and 4 as well as on Radio-3.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that, even with that addition, our output of stereophonic programmes still compares very unfavourably with that of most other countries, notably West Germany and Japan? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is an adverse effect upon our export trade when manufacturers of high fidelity equipment have so few opportunities to demonstrate their products to foreign buyers in this country?

Mr. Chataway: Obviously, the B.B.C. has difficult questions of priorities to determine. I gather than the stereo service covers about 60 per cent. of the country's population at the moment. But I am sure that the Corporation will bear in mind my hon. Friend's observations

Broadcasting Finance

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received from programme companies regarding the independent television levy; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunica-

tions what recent representations he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation about the Corporation's need for further finance; and when he expects to complete his study of the matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is now able to make a statement on the Government's decision concerning the television levy; and when this is likely to take place.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now make a statement on the revision of the television levy.

Mr. Chataway: I will be making a statement on broadcasting finance immediately after Question Time today.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister adopt the excellent practice followed by his predecessor when he is to make a statement in answer to Questions and notify the hon. Members concerned of his intention?

Mr. Chataway: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he did not receive a letter from me. I thought that I had sent a note to all who asked these Questions.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman has not sent a letter to me; at least, I have not received it.

Mr. Chataway: This may be due to temporary difficulties; I have signed a letter to the hon. Gentleman.

Public Telephone Kiosks

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office that it ensures that all public telephone kiosks are adapted to take incoming calls.

Mr. Chataway: This should remain a matter for the Post Office, and I understand that this facility is generally available.

Dr. Gilbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that it is not generally available and that its lack often causes great inconvenience, particularly in country areas, when people run out of coins in a call-box and do not have credit cards? If he is not prepared to make a


general direction of this nature, will he ask the Post Office at least to indicate inside a call-box whether it is one which will accept in-coming calls?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Board will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend consider this suggestion, because it is not only people in country areas who are concerned but people who are on the waiting lists for telephones, for many of whom this is the only means of communication? Is it not clearly a deliberate act of policy by the Post Office to make call-boxes inoperative for in-coming calls? These calls can still be received by picking up the telephone, although the bell does not ring because the ringing tone has been removed.

Mr. Chataway: I am told by the Post Office that the facility is generally available, but it is barred where, for instance, a nuisance has been caused by an individual monopolising the kiosk to the exclusion of people waiting outside. It is only in particular circumstances that the facility has been denied, but I am sure that the Board will take note of what has been said this afternoon.

Postal Charges

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the introduction of further increases in postal charges.

Mr. Chataway: I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on 30th October last year.—[Vol. 805, c. 227–8.]

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why some tariffs have already been published indicating a 9d. charge for the first-class letter post? Will he consult the Prime Minister about interfering in this matter "at a stroke" to limit the price increases, as the Prime Minister promised in the General Election?

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, last summer the Government reduced by some £30 million the price increases which were proposed by the Post Office and which the Labour

Administration had delayed through the period of the General Election. I am not aware of any tariff proposals for a 9d. post which have been published as fact.

National Data Processing Service

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement on the future of the National Data Processing Service.

Mr. Chataway: I have received from the Post Office its proposals for future investment in the service and I am considering them.

Mr. Huckfield: No doubt the Minister is aware of the profit-making potential of the N.D.P.S. In view of that, will he tell the House something about possible hiving-off? Can he also say something about the future of modems and discreet data lines and something about the means by which he intends to preserve the confidentiality of the matter handled?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member has raised a number of matters clearly outside the scope of the original Question. However, I can tell him that the service made a small loss last year, but that the Post Office believes that that is simply because of the time it takes for new projects to become profitable.

Mr. Mawby: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a service into which the Post Office ought not to have entered in the first place and that, although data transmission is a service which the Post Office could obviously do very well, it ought never to have under-taken data processing?

Mr. Chataway: As my hon. Friend will know, there are a number of considerations here. At the moment, I am looking at the investment proposals which have been put to me by the Post Office Board and I will bear in mind the view of my hon. Friend.

Giro

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement on the future of Giro.

Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 25th January to


the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).—[Vol. 810, c. 23–24.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that his own indecision in this matter is seriously undermining the growth potential of Giro? is he further aware that two very big national accounts are teetering on the brink, but will not sign until he makes his statement?

Mr. Chataway: I am aware of the desirability of making as early a decision as possible, but the House will appreciate that it is not an easy decision to take. This is a service which is losing a substantial amount of money and, naturally, it has to be reviewed carefully. It must also be said that the present strike has added some new factors which must be assessed.

Mr. Heifer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that on Merseyside it is felt that there must be a quick decision, precisely because of the high level of unemployment on Merseyside and because part of the Lucas factory is to close because of the Rolls-Royce debacle? It is important for the people on Merseyside, particularly the workers in Giro, that there should be a quick decision.

Mr. Chataway: I am aware of the importance of a quick decision for the employment situation in the area, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot sanction the continuance of the service until I am satisfied that it may be run at a profit.

Mr. Ridsdale: My right hon. Friend said that it was losing a substantial amount of money. Can he say exactly how much Giro is losing?

Mr. Chataway: At the moment it is losing at the rate of £6 million a year.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition would regard any decision to drop this exceedingly useful service as very serious, the more so as at some stage we should like to hear that he will persuade his right hon. Friends and their Departments to use what we have always regarded as an exceedingly useful service?

Mr. Chataway: A Government Department, like any other organisation, must

choose the service which it thinks best fitted to its own needs. I do not deny that it is a useful service to many people, but one has to be concerned with whether it can ever be run profitably.

Mail (Postage Overseas)

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is satisfied with the regulations which prohibit British firms from posting material overseas for delivery in Great Britain at a cost lower than the rates payable on the same material posted in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: I am satisfied that these regulations, which are now the responsibility of the Post Office, are compatible with the obligations assumed by Her Majesty's Government under the Universal Postal Convention.

Mr. Gummer: Is there any distinction in the use of these regulations between countries like the Netherlands and others outside the Commonwealth and countries in the Commonwealth, such as Gibraltar, where it is cheaper to send post from this country and back?

Mr. Chataway: In this matter we are governed by the convention of the U.P.U. which applies to all Member States whether inside or outside the Commonwealth.

Telephone Installation Charges

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he proposes to make an announcement about increased installation charges for domestic telephones.

Mr. Chataway: This would be a matter for the Post Office in the first instance.

Mr. Deakins: Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Post Office is aware that there would be an adverse public reaction if these charges were to be raised beyond the cost of providing the service? Is he further aware that raising them to the extent of subsidising uneconomic parts of the Post Office service would be taken very badly amiss?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Board to assist in the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, by making available copies in all post offices and sub-post offices, and accepting payment direct from local authorities in respect of subscribers eligible for assistance under the Act.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. A general direction would not be appropriate.

Mr. Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who are desperately concerned that the provisions of this Act should be known? Will he not reconsider his reply and consult some of his right hon. Friends whose Departments seem to be having great difficulty in making local authorities and others aware of the provisions of the Act? Will he further see that the Post Office Board and its officials are aware that under the Act it is a responsibility of the local authorities to assist in the provision of telephones in this instance, not the Supplementary Benefits Commission? Perhaps he would like to look at correspondence which I have received which indicates that the Post Office is totally ignorant of the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says but, as he will appreciate, it is particularly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Business Letters (Charges)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is aware that many business houses in London are willingly paying 2s. 6d. for the cost of delivery of a letter to a restricted Central London area; and whether he will give a general direction to enable the Post Office Board to charge 2s. 6d. for each business letter delivered within the centres of large cities.

Mr. Chataway: I am aware of the Press reports. It would be a recipe for decimating the postal service.

Mr. Lewis: I cannot understand this. If business houses are voluntarily paying as much as 2s. 3d. or 2s. 6d. a letter for a restricted area surely they will be pleased to pay 2s. when the Post Office gets back to normal?

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Member has any evidence that businesses are sending the same volume of traffic through the private services as they would through the Post Office it would surprise me.

Local Radio

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement on local radio.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement regarding his proposals for local radio.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a further statement about the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation local radio service.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now make a statement on his proposals for commercial radio.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement about the future of local radio stations.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement concerning his policy for local radio.

Mr. Chataway: I cannot anticipate the White Paper, which the Government will be publishing as soon as possible.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of promises have emanated from the Government Front Bench but none have so far been honoured? Does he appreciate that only last Thursday the Leader of the House promised my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that a statement on local radio would be made in the very near future? Can the Minister at least give us a glimmer of comfort and, if he cannot say the month in which it


will be made, perhaps he will tell us which year?

Mr. Chataway: I am almost overcome by the enthusiasm shown by hon. Gentlemen for an alternative service. I share their eagerness to introduce competition into radio and I can assure them it will not be delayed a moment longer than is necessary. I said that the White Paper would be published early this year, and it will be.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the damaging effect that the delay has and the very great concern that is felt particularly about the development of welfare and other services, which can be held up? Does he appreciate that we do not want more commercialism?

Mr. Chataway: I am not quite sure to what welfare services the hon. Member is referring.

Mr. Fowler: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the introduction of commercial radio could considerably increase the opportunities of work for journalists and that this might be a factor of some importance? Would he bear in mind the need to introduce some kind of commercial radio news programme on the lines of I.T.N.?

Mr. Chataway: I agree with my hon. Friend. That would be an extremely desirable feature of the new service. I agree with him, too, that the new service is bound to employ a large number of journalists.

Mr. Richard: The Minister will be aware that this is a subject creating a great deal of discussion and interest not only on both sides of the House but in many areas outside of it. Would he give an assurance that the Government will take no firm decisions on this matter until after the House has had an opportunity of discussing the White Paper?

Mr. Chataway: Yes. The White Paper will contain the Government's proposals. If in the light of the discussion which takes place thereafter it seems that some of those proposals can be improved upon, they will be so improved before legislation is introduced.

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications

what representation he has received from the Wiltshire Branch County Executive Committee of the National Farmers' Union concerning the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation's local radio; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Chataway: The Committee has written to me to express its concern for the future of B.B.C. local radio. I will be replying when the postal services are returned to normal and I will send the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

Mr. Stoddart: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that when he sends his answer he will bear in mind the very strong views put to him by the National Farmers' Union that the B.B.C. local radio supplies excellent services to the rural community, particularly those in agriculture, which, in its view, commercial radio cannot supply.

Mr. Chataway: I will bear those views in mind, together with the many other representations made to me.

Mr. Richard: When the right hon. Gentleman writes to the N.F.U. branch in Swindon, will he take the opportunity of going a little further than he went in answer to my supplementary question earlier today? He indicated—and we were very thankful for it—that the proposals in the White Paper were not necessarily the Government's last word on this issue. Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider publishing not a White Paper but a Green Paper so that a general discussion can take place and can be seen to take place?

Mr. Chataway: I do not attach quite as much significance to colours as perhaps the hon. Gentleman does, but the proposals which the Government put forward will be proposals and I have no doubt that they will lead to a lively debate and, I hope, general approbation.

Mr. Kaufman: In considering the future of local radio in Wiltshire or elsewhere, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that allegations of corruption against the B.B.C., which I trust he is taking seriously, will be as nothing to the scope for corruption which there will be if he introduces commercial radio?

Mr. Chataway: I see no reason to expect that commercial radio will be


more corrupt than commercial television or organs of the commercial Press such as the New Statesman for which the hon. Gentleman writes.

Inter-City Trains (Telephone Service)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office that it makes an investigation of the costs and revenues likely to arise from installing a telephone service on inter-city trains, and that it publishes the results of that investigation.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a commercial matter for the Post Office and British Rail.

Dr. Gilbert: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second disappointing answer that we have had on this subject? Will he accept that this is not just a case of a frivolous luxury but something that would make a great deal of difference in the industrial efficiency of the country?

Mr. Chataway: I agree that in principle it would seem to be a desirable feature. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a question for the two bodies I mentioned as to whether it is introduced. I believe that American experience as to whether it can be made commercially viable is very gloomy.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my right hon. Friend agree that he often has to say on a matter like this that it is a Board matter, and that many of the unhappinesses on this side or the other side of the House spring from the belief that the Post Office Board is never as quick in taking up new and imaginative ideas as it might be?

Mr. Chataway: I know that the Post Office is interested in this idea and has been for some years. Some technical trials were carried out in 1965.

Broadcasting Receiving Licence Fees

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will seek to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, to ensure that in areas of poor or non-existent television reception where a satisfactory service can only be had

by means of a television relay system the rent payable for such a system is deductible from the broadcast receiving licence fee.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir; licence revenue finances the B.B.C. A standard licence fee is a fair way of spreading the cost among all viewers, leaving individual viewers free to use the services of relay companies if they wish.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of these relay services, without which many of my constituents cannot receive anything but a large snowstorm, is often more expensive than the cost of the licence? Does he not think that the Government should start offering something for the money that they are taking? Is he aware that in private hands this would be tantamount to fraud?

Mr. Chataway: It would be very difficult to depart from standard licence fees. If we were to do so there could be as good a case for arguing that the fee ought to be related to the cost of getting the signal to the viewer as there is for relating it to the number of services that the viewer could get or the standard of reception.

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will seek to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, to ensure that the fee for a broadcast receiving licence is payable only for actual reception and not only for the installation of broadcast receiving apparatus.

Mr. Chataway: I assume that the hon. Member's purpose is to relate the licence fee to the quality or quantity of services received. I could not agree to that; nor would the hon. Member's proposal in fact achieve that end.

Mr. Pardoe: While hoping the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my last Question will not be extended to cover his postal services in future, may I remind him that for almost as long as television has existed many hundreds of people on the North Cornish coast have been unable to receive any kind of reception at all? Does he not think that, far from charging just for the quality of reception, he should remove the licence for those who cannot receive anything?

Mr. Chataway: If there are those who cannot receive anything, they probably would not be tempted to take out a licence in the first place. The broadcasting authorities place a pretty big priority upon the extension of their services.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my right hon. Friend give us any firm guidance as to when the Post Office will be able to install the low-voltage boosters for 625-line transmission in areas such as North Cornwall and West Derbyshire?

Mr. Chataway: I could not say offhand but I will certainly inform my hon. Friend by letter.

Welfare Broadcasts (Hire Line Charges)

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to reduce its hire line charges to voluntary bodies and charitable organisations which broadcast to local hospitals, old people's home and blind persons' institutions.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir.

Mr. Harper: While thanking the Minister for that forthright reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the sort of money necessary to finance these lines when, for example, it costs £160 a year in the Pontefract area, and, I understand, £300 in Wakefield and £600 in Huddersfield? Would he not agree that these people, who work for nothing, deserve better support than his reply suggests? Would he not further agree that if some of these lines were withdrawn from the hospitals and old people's institutions because of a lack of finance, it would be a tragedy, particularly for those who depend upon such broadcasts?

Mr. Chataway: I do not under-rate the importance of these broadcasts and I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but it would not, in my view, be right to impose welfare obligations on a business organisation like the Post Office.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a growing service welcomed by many people? Perhaps he would think about

his answer once again. It was rather curt. Will he give a little more thought to it?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The question asked me to give a general direction, and I replied that I will not. I do not think it would be proper for me to do so. It is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend look at this again? It is an important point. Will he consult his right hon. Friend to see whether some arrangement can be made whereby these voluntary organisations in hospitals, helping blind people and so on, are not charged in this way?

Mr. Chataway: I will certainly draw the attention of the Post Office to what has been said on both sides of the House.

Post Offices (Anti-bandit Screens)

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office to increase the number of anti-bandit screens at public counters in Crown Post Offices.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how concerned post office counter clerks are about the continuing hazard which they face from bandits? Presumably he is aware that they feel so concerned that they have threatened possible further industrial action on this issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his immediate attention to the acceleration of the programme for anti-bandit screens?

Mr. Chataway: I am informed by the Post Office that its current installation programme should be completed by August this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of South


Africa concerning the detention of British subjects without trial.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): The South African authorities have been told, most recently on 23rd January, that whenever a United Kingdom citizen is arrested and detained we expect that charges should be preferred against him and that he should be brought to trial, or that he should otherwise be speedily released.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he had his attention drawn to the fact that when the South African Government recently arrested the Dean of Johannesberg, the Dean was not allowed to have a priest for the whole period up to the point at which charges were at long last preferred against him?

Mr. Godber: I am told that the Dean of Johannesburg was arrested on 20th January and, after representations had been made, was released on bail on 28th January. He will reappear in court on 26th February. I have no details about the precise arrangements made during his detention. Her Majesty's Government made representations as soon as they were aware of the situation.

West German Foreign Minister (Meeting)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with the West German Foreign Minister on Thursday, 4th February.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 11th February.—[Vol. 811, c. 283-4.]

Mr. Mackenzie: In view of the statements which we have read in the Press about off-set costs and the change in the arrangements for paying them in respect of B.A.O.R., will the hon. Gentleman make a further statement on this issue?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend discussed with Herr Scheel future arrangements for meeting the foreign exchange

costs of maintaining British Forces in Germany. We also discussed Britain's part in the proposed N.A.T.O. infrastructure scheme. A broad measure of agreement has reached, and the questions will now be pursued by officials.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend tell the House a little bit about what may have happened at the meeting with Herr Scheel concerning our position in West Berlin?

Mr. Royle: Of course, the matter of West Berlin was discussed, but the details of the discussions are confidential.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister said that a broad measure of agreement was reached. Can he give us some more details and say to what extent the Germans have agreed to increase their financial contribution?

Mr. Royle: It is not possible for me to go further at this stage. The matter is now being discussed by officials in Western Germany and in this country.

Mrs. Renée Short: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any progress was made in the discussions about Britain's entry into the Common Market and whether the West Germans are likely to change their tack and give support to his right hon. Friend who is trying so hard to drag us in at such expense?

Mr. Royle: I think that the hon. Lady will wish to know that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a broad discussison with Herr Scheel on matters of common interest involving the negotiations, but I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go into detail on them now.

Northern Ireland (I.R.A. Arms and Ammunition)

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the supply of arms and ammunition to the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland from the funds of the Republic's Government.

Mr. Anthony Royle: None, Sir.

Rev. bin Paisley: Is the Minister aware of the grave concern in Northern Ireland about the recent happenings in the South of Ireland where, before a committee of the Parliament of the Republic, revelations were made concerning sums of many thousands of pounds, and also ammunition and guns, which were alleged to be handed over to the I.R.A.? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that representations should be made to the Parliament and Government of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Royle: As I stated in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on 10th November, 1970, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Lynch, has ordered that investigations into the alleged misuse of funds be carried out. The results of those investigations have not yet been made known.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest estimate of the current rate of return on capital employed by the British Steel Corporation; and if he will lay down a new and improved target rate of return for the Corporation to aim at.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The return on capital employed by the British Steel Corporation, including its subsidiaries, in its last financial year—28th September, 1969, to 28th March, 1970—was at an annual rate of about 4 per cent. As regards the current financial year, I cannot reveal the details of forecasts made in confidence. On the question of the financial objective, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on 27th October.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not clear that there has been a fairly staggering decline in the profitability of the Corporation over the past two years? Has my hon. Friend had any indication of the amount which the Corporation has been spending out of its sharply dwindling profits on advertising and public relations activities

designed to oppose the policies which the Government were elected to pursue?

Mr. Ridley: On the first point, my hon. Friend must await publication of the accounts, which I cannot anticipate. On the second point, I suggest that he writes to the Chairman of the Corporation because that is a matter entirely within his province.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is not this a rather unfortunate time in our affairs for hon. Members opposite to table hostile Questions about nationalised industries? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many of us on this side of the House, because we think that there are occasions when national interests are greater than party interests, restrain our tendency to indulge in recriminations about this sort of thing? If we are doing our best to be restrained over the Rolls-Royce case, it does not help the country when hon. Members opposite put down hostile Questions about the nationalised Steel Corporation.

Mr. Ridley: So far as I am aware, I have not indulged in any recriminations. But I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the need to obtain a proper return on capital from public as well as private investments.

Captain W. Elliot: As the return on the steel industry's capital is so low and the capital expenditure so high, would my hon. Friend agree that the difference comes from the profits made by private industry?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is having a careful review of the whole of the finances of the B.S.C. and I cannot anticipate what the result of that will be, but there can be no contradicting what my hon. and gallant Friend says, that if one concern whether in the public or the private sector makes a poor return on capital, the others, which make a better return, subsidise it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can the Minister give us an up-to-date account of the fresh burdens the Government have been placing notably through the abolition of investment grants on the British Steel Corporation, and their proposals for dealing with the scrap, which may together be adding an extra burden on to the Corporation? Moreover, before he accepts the suggestions of his hon.


Friends, will he tell us what are the latest estimates of the Government of the rate of return on capital in the Japanese steel industry, with which we have to compete? Will the hon. Gentleman try to find out the facts there before he takes any further action to injure the position of the British Steel Corporation?

Mr. Ridley: I think the question of scrap and of investment grants would arise in relation to future financial years and not to the present one, which is what this Question refers to. I am afraid I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the Japanese steel industry.

Paper and Board Making Industry

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has completed his investigations into the difficulties being experienced by the paper and board making industry; and if he will make a statement on his proposals to deal with the problem.

Mr. Ridley: The paper and board industry has not asked me to investigate its problems but I am ready to discuss the situation if the industry thinks this would be helpful.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, even if the industry has not directly asked him to investigate, many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have been asking him to do so since last July, and that the serious situation in Scotland, where a couple of mills have been closed and others are having difficulties through the decision of the Government to remove investment grants, is having an adverse effect on the development of the industry in Scotland? Would he take some more positive action in relation to this industry?

Mr. Ridley: I do not see how the decision to remove investment grants in future could have any possible connection with the present difficulties of certain concerns in Scotland. It is true that the paper industry is facing very heavy competition from Scandinavia, but that, of course, is part of the bargain of entering the European Free Trade Association, and it would be quite improper to attempt to protect it from competition

of this sort. Nevertheless, if there are any problems which representatives from the industry would like to bring to me I should be only too delighted to discuss them.

Mr. Tom King: Can my hon. Friend say whether informal discussions between his Department and the Scandinavian producers can be accelerated and is there not evidence that Scandinavian producers are in breach of the E.F.T.A. agreement not to abuse their position as dominant producers?

Mr. Ridley: Negotiations are going on about that matter and I should not like to anticipate their outcome or prejudice them by saying anything at this stage, but I can assure my hon. Friend that these discussions are being carried on as urgently as possible.

Investment Grants

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish estimates of the regional breakdown of payment of investment grants in the years 1970–71, 1971–72, 1972–73, 1973–74, and 1974–75.

Mr. Ridley: I regret that information is not available on a regional basis.

Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be extreme disappointment because of that answer, because a regional breakdown is extremely valuable, particularly for the Scottish position? Would he accept that the way the Government have gone about terminating the investment grants has caused considerable dissatisfaction and inconvenience, particularly in Scotland?

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry the information is not available. It never has been. It would cost a disproportionately large amount to collect it. However, I would not accept at all the hon. Gentleman's assertion that a change from grants to allowances is going to cause considerable inconvenience in Scotland or anywhere else. It is in the long run, we believe, going greatly to improve the economy of Scotland.

Mr. Lane: If my hon. Friend were able to publish corresponding figures for the past four years, would they not show that in most of the regions the expenditure on grants has been disproportionately


high in relation to the number of new jobs created?

Mr. Ridley: Although that is a hypothetical question, there has been some evidence, supported even by hon. Gentlemen opposite who formed part of the Government of that time, that this was the case. One of the reasons why the Government have wished to move from grants to allowances has been to make sure that highly capital-intensive projects do not necessarily attract large grants from public money without the certainty that they are profit making as well.

Mr. Ross: On the question of the availability of figures, is the hon. Gentleman aware that figures were given for Scotland by his Department to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Ridley: I should like to look into that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering the effect of investment grants in areas like Scotland, that the number of recent company closures which have occurred has been related to the consequences of the huge increase in things like road tax introduced by the previous Government, in addition to the evidence about the payment of investment grants?

Mr. Ridley: I think it is impossible to emphasise too much that the present closures and present difficulties in the regions and in the country as a whole cannot be ascribed to the Government's change from grants to allowances because the changes have not yet had time to have any effect at all. They can only be ascribed to the policy of the previous Government in having a massive money squeeze at a time when wages were rising very highly indeed.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the change in the system would not have had effect on the numbers of industrialists now applying? How does he account for the drop which has occurred, certainly in Wales and, I understand, in Scotland as well?

Mr. Ridley: If I were to admit that it would have that effect, would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to admit that it was the previous Government's policies which have had the effect of the redun-

dancies and closures taking place at present?

Industry (Scotland)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give estimates of the proportion of the total assistance offered to attract new industry and expand existing industry accruing to Scotland in the years 1970 to 1975.

Mr. Ridley: No realistic estimate is possible, since expenditure in future years in particular areas will depend on detailed location decisions yet to be taken by industry.

Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is really beyond comprehension that when we ask for detailed information from his Department it is never available? Estimates of this nature were given to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the reason why these estimates are not forthcoming is that the total amount for assistance given to Scotland by his Department in the new estimates has been tragically reduced?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must accept that it would be impossible to predict how many firms would set up, how much their investment would be, and what would be the cost of the Government's regional policies in a highly hypothetical situation which will arise in the next five years. He must accept that we cannot quantify guesses of this sort in the future.

Mr. Pardoe: Apart from guesses into the future, will the hon. Gentleman deny that businessmen are finding it extremely difficult to move to development areas? Does he say that Government policies have improved the confidence of businessmen to invest in Scotland or any other of the development areas?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree that there has been a downturn in general business activity as a result of the policies pursued by the last Government. Surely it is not beyond his wit to realise that nothing this Government have done has altered the economic and industrial climate as yet. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are not


satisfied with the position, they have only themselves to blame.

Mr. William Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman says he cannot provide the figures in reply to this Question, how did the Government arrive at the figures of Government assistance to industry as given in the White Paper on Public Expenditure up to 1974–75?

Mr. Ridley: The figures in the White Paper are merely estimates. It is quite impossible to be certain what the figures will be.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman, who has refused to answer all the other questions on this subject, now tell us whether the applications by industrialists wanting to go new to these regions is going up or going down?

Mr. Ridley: That does not arise on this Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question about that I will consider it.

Fuel Policy

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, due to the increased price of fuel oil over the past few years, and the danger of it being in short supply, he will make a statement on the present Government's fuel policy on the lines of the Fuel Policy White Paper published in November, 1967, Command Paper No. 3438.

Mr. Ridley: The first paragraph of the Report states that the terms of reference were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th May, 1968, cols. 32–39.

Mr. Wainwright: Would the hon. Gentleman realise that the forecasts made then are very much out of date now? Does he also not realise that there is a wind of change blowing through the Middle East, where they are supplying oil to the consumer countries, including this one? Would he give consideration to the coal mining industry and treat it more favourably? Has he ever had consultations with the National Coal Board about sinking a new pit in the new virgin coalfield in the Thorne area?

Mr. Ridley: I must apologise to the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. I think he asked Question No. 63; I gave him the answer to Question No. 62. Would it be

in order for me to give the right answer to the Question, so that he may base his supplementary on the answer I gave?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should answer Question 63.

Mr. Ridley: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's speech to the House on 29th October last and to that of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to the House on 3rd December last.

Mr. Speaker: Now will the Minister answer the supplementary?

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that those forecasts are now very much out of date? Would he not consider that a wind of change is blowing through the Middle East which will affect the supplies of oil to this country? Has he considered or discussed with the N.C.B. the matter of whether or not to sink a new shaft in the virgin coalfield in the Thorne district?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the question of whether or not to sink a new shaft or to increase production is a matter entirely for the National Coal Board. If, in view of the change in economic circumstances and the relative prices of different fuels, the Board finds it appropriate to make application to do so, my Department will certainly consider the application sympathetically.

Mr. Harper: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is now self-evident that the pits are being closed too hurriedly? In view of the situation in the Middle East and the other oil producing countries, would he not consider publishing a further White Paper which will take into account all the relevant facts and give us an up-to-date picture of what we might expect to see in this industry?

Mr. Ridley: I do not think that there is much profit in publishing a further White Paper, without firm forecasts, at a time when estimates of future demand are moving so rapidly in relation to very quickly changing economic circumstances. I would not accent that the National Coal Board had been precipitate in closing pits. All the production which the Board plans for in future is entirely a matter for the Board in relation to its estimates of demand.

Wylfa Nuclear Power Station

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Wylfa nuclear power station to come into operation; what is likely to be the final capital cost and the latest estimate of the cost per unit sent out; and how these compare with the original estimates.

Mr. Ridley: The provision of detailed information about individual power stations is a matter of day-to-day management which, under the Electricity Acts, is the responsibility of the C.E.G.B. I am therefore asking the Chairman of the Board to write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he should know the facts and figures and should make some comparison of what has actually happened? Is he not aware that, for a long time now, the N.C.B. has been questioning the figures from the nuclear power stations? Some of us might agree that nuclear power is the future power not only for this country but for the world, but would he not also consider that it can have a great effect on the Coal Board and the future of the mining industry if the correct figures are not given?

Mr. Ridley: The trouble at Wylfa has been the delay caused by corrosion of some components in the reactor core. This is a technical hitch, which will be overcome. The result has been to delay the coming into operation of the station. It does not affect the economics of the station, apart from the small cost of the extra delay, and does not affect the calculations upon which the decision to build the stationed was based.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970

Mr. Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, have been printed.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): 27,500.

Mr. Latham: May I first express my gratitude at having been able to get in Question No. 71, which I did not hope

to do? I think that the Minister said 27,800. Can he explain what has happened to them all? Is it possible to get any account, perhaps in a Written Answer, of the way in which copies are distributed? Might it not be helpful, in view of the ignorance of so many local authorities about the passage of the Act, and even of officials of some Government Departments, if enough further copies could be printed so that every local councillor of a county council, county borough and London borough could be made aware of the provisions of the Act, to make up what appears to be the negligence of so many of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends in publicising the provisions of the Act?

Mr. Higgins: I have some difficulty in reconciling the hon. Gentleman's supplementary Question with the facts. Sales have, in fact, been very brisk. About 16,100 copies were issued to Government Departments or sold to the public in the first three months following publication, and even now copies are still going at the rate of about 1,500 a month.

Mr. Molloy: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared now to send a circular to all local authorities pointing out their responsibilities under the Act, and also asking for a return so as to find out how many are avading their responsibilities, so that he, as the Minister, can then take appropriate action?

Mr. Higgins: This is a matter for my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. No doubt if a Question is put down, he will seek to answer it.

Mr. Lane: Is it not a fact that the Department of Health and Social Security has drawn the attention of many local authorities to several of the provisions of this Act, and that it is steadily getting better known in the different areas?

Mr. Higgins: I would hope that that was clear—I am grateful to my hon. Friend—from the original answer which I gave, which is that there has been a very large issue indeed and a reprint was authorised back in October.

Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is largely due to the financial restraints imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on local authorities that they are not expanding the services as


required by the Act? Will he take action to ensure that this is done as speedily as possible, and not simply rest content on 27,000-odd copies of the Bill having been circulated? Well over I million people are waiting to be helped here.

Mr. Higgins: As I said, the substance of this issue is one for the Department of Health and Social Security, for which the Secretary of State has responsibility. As for the sales of these documents, I should have thought that it was clear from my original answers that we had had a very widespread circulation indeed.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that I put a Question last week to the Secretary of State for Social Services asking whether he would issue a White Paper saying what local authorities which have already started to operate the Bill have done, what money is being made available and what is the amount on the rate support grant? Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite are out of date, because I have already asked for the information?

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the numbers of copies distributed to Government Departments and sold to the public. How many have gone to local authorities?

Mr. Higgins: I am afraid that I cannot give that answer without notice.

Mr. William Hamilton: Do this Government and the present Chancellor accept the same financial responsibility for the implementation of this Act as did the previous Government?

Dame Irene Ward: Yes.

Mr. Higgins: That really does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Could I press the hon. Gentleman to treat this matter more seriously? Local authorities at present are not only fully aware of what should be done but very doubtful about being able to find the necessary money.

Will he ensure that information goes to local authorities, explaining their duties, so that these unfortunate people can get all the help and care they need?

Mr. Higgins: I am aware of all these very interesting questions. If hon. Gentlemen would like to put them down, they will receive answers. I have sought to give answers, which I think are entirely satisfactory, to the Question which was put down.

Mr. Braine: We are, of course, all agreed that my hon. Friend has only limited responsibilities and has answered this Question correctly. Is he seized of the point, which hon. Members on both sides are trying to make, that there has been a slowness on the part of local authorities in this matter? Therefore, will he, when conveying the sense of the House this afternoon to his hon. Friends, make this point?

Mr. Higgins: I am sure that the point which my hon. Friend and others have made will be noted by the Secretary of State, particularly in view of all the numerous supplementary questions which happen to have arisen on this Question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House on having got through all the Questions appearing on the Order Paper for today, may I ask the Minister if he will urge the various Government Departments involved with this matter in White-hall to follow this wonderful example which the Leader of the House and Mr. Speaker have set, remembering that none of those Departments in Whitehall has done anything to get these facilities, such as invalid carriages, to those who need them? Will the Minister get cracking and ask the Leader of the House to show him the way?

Mr. Higgins: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I look forward to debating several issues at greater speed later tonight, when I understand the hon. Gentleman will be raising a matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill which I shall have the pleasure of answering.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)

3.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I will, with permission, make a statement.
The House will be aware that the acting Chairman of the Post Office Corporation wrote on Saturday to Mr. Jackson of the Union of Post Office Workers to invite the union to discuss with the Post Office the possibility of finding measures to improve efficiency which would enable the Post Office's offer to be increased without adding to costs. The union responded immediately to this suggestion. After a preliminary discussion on Saturday, talks between the Post Office and the union took place yesterday. They have resumed this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me on Thursday to report today on the up-to-date position in the electricity supply workers' dispute. I understand that informal discussions have taken place between the two sides, who have agreed that a formal meeting of the National Joint Industrial Council should be held on Thursday.
In the circumstances, I am sure that the House will agree that further comment on these two issues would be undesirable at this stage.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I are delighted that the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office are negotiating again, even if it had to be on their own initiative? [Interruption.]
Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, will he make another statement to the House tomorrow about the postal workers' dispute? Secondly, in connection with the electricity supply dispute, does he now wish in any way to modify the statement he made to the House last Wednesday on the Wilberforce Report, in the course of which he said that he had the authority of the Court to quote the figure of 10·9 per cent. as the effect on average earnings, of the Wilberforce recommendations?

Mr. Carr: The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the first part is that I will certainly make another state-

ment about the postal dispute. Perhaps it would be unwise of me to give a definite promise to make a statement tomorrow; the House will agree that it must depend on the way things develop. However, I certainly undertake to make another statement at the earliest possible suitable moment.

Mrs. Castle: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on my second supplementary question. Is he now repeating what he said on Wednesday; namely, that he had the authority of the Court as a whole to quote the figure of 10·9 per cent., as he claimed he had? Is he now reaffirming that?

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thorpe: While everyone will welcome the fact that the two sides are now talking and while nobody would wish to prejudice the outcome of these talks, is it not an extraordinary commentary on our industrial relations situation that it should have taken one month before anybody should have put up the idea of a productivity deal which might produce a formula which could give satisfaction to both sides? Will the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to the fact that it has taken so long for the obvious to be put forward?

Mr. Carr: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have addressed my mind to this point many times over the last few weeks, and, indeed, before the strike arose. However, as I have explained to the House, and as it sometimes happens, alas, in industrial situations, the positions of the two sides were very firm on this, among other aspects of the dispute. I am delighted that the talks are now taking place.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: While endorsing the encouragement that has been expressed on both sides to the fact that negotiations are proceeding again, may I ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that one of the real difficulties in the current Post Office dispute is the fact that Post Office Workers have been denied access to the Civil Service Pay Research Unit, which they previously enjoyed as civil servants? Would he urge the Post Office to establish alternative pay research machinery to avoid such difficulties in future?

Mr. Carr: Now that the Post Office is a nationalised industry, I feel that it really must decide these matters for itself, as other nationalised industries do. The House must also bear in mind the nature of the agreement on this matter which both sides signed last August.

Mr. Heffer: Returning to the question which was posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say exactly how he got authority for making that statement? Was it in the form of a telephone conversation with Lord Wilberforce? Was it by way of a letter written by him? Exactly how did the right hon. Gentleman receive this authority? So that the whole House may be fully informed of the precise position, would the right hon. Gentleman give this information?

Mr. Carr: I inquired of the Secretary to the Court and he inquired of the Chairman. The Chairman gave the Secretary his authority to say to me that 10·9 per cent. was the figure which the Court—I emphasise "the Court" and not just "the Chairman"—had before it and accepted, as a Court, as being the figure implied in its recommendations.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mrs. Castle: I must put this to the right hon. Gentleman because he now seems to be correcting what he said in reply to me earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly aware that what I was asking him was whether all the members of the Court had been consulted about this figure and whether, sitting as a court, they had approved it. [Interruption.] This is most important. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not mind the House being misled, but we do. I then made it clear that I was asking whether that figure had been given to him as covering all the items in the Report and not merely some of them.

Mr. Carr: I made it clear to the House that the figure of 10·9 per cent. was on exactly a comparable basis, as indeed it is. I also made it clear in my statement last week that as the employers' offer had been labelled "10 per cent." when, to be precise, it was 9·7 per cent., so it

was right to label the Wilberforce proposal 10·9 per cent. This figure was before the Court, but the Court decided not to quote it. Nevertheless, the figure was before the whole Court and the Chairman gave his authority to me to state that that was the figure which the Court accepted as being the cost of its proposals on a truly comparable basis with the employers' offer.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Hon. Members: Not again.

Mrs. Castle: How could that be on a truly comparable basis with the Electricity Council's offer, considering that the Wilberforce recommendations contained two items, holiday pay and lead-in payments, which were never offered by the Electricity Council? Is not the right hon. Gentleman therefore deliberately misleading the House—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."]—when he quotes the figure of 10·79 per cent., knowing that that figure did not include two important items in the recommendations, holiday pay and lead-in payments? That is why we say the Court never authorised him to quote that figure.

Mr. Carr: I must repeat that I had the authority to quote the figure I gave—

Mr. Heffer: Not by the full Court but by the Chairman.

Mr. Carr: I was authorised by the Court to quote the figure I gave. The holiday payment question was considered by the Court and—speaking from memory, but I am almost sure speaking rightly from memory—was mentioned in its Report, and it was indicated that three odd days to be taken by the staff, not collectively all at once but individually as was convenient within the year, would not add to the costs of the industry—[Interruption.]—because the time off would be absorbed without any overtime payment. Here again I am quoting —[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may or may not agree with it, but I am quoting the view of the Court on the effect of its holiday pay proposals on the labour costs of the industry.
As for the second question, had I included an estimate—which I think would be impossible—of the cost of the lead-in payment, the figure I would have given would not have been 10·9 per cent.


but something considerably lower—I would probably have guessed it at something like 6 per cent.

Mrs. Castle: Oh.

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady cannot have understood the employers' offer. The employers' offer was quite clearly expressed as being an estimate of 10 per cent. on the wages bill, the earnings—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, on the earnings bill of the industry assuming a stable labour force during the 12 months. The incentive bonus payments were on offer already. They would have gone on being implemented even if there had been no claim and no offer this year. What the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry did was to offer an incentive payment to get the introduction quicker, and the faster these incentive bonus schemes are introduced the faster the earnings of individuals will go up, but the smaller the addition to the labour costs of the industry will become.

Mr. Harold Wilson: But when the right hon. Gentleman informed the House on these matters last week, did he not say that 9·7 per cent. was on the average earnings? He was not talking about the wages bill of the industry but about average earnings. Is he now saying that with the so-far undefined wages policy of the Government he is perfectly happy about any wage settlement provided that it is expressed in holidays? [Interruption.] For example, when Ministers go on television to say that no settlement in a particular industry must be more than 10 per cent., does one take it that he would be quite happy if there were a fortnight's holiday with pay added on?
Furthermore, he has just told the House now that the figure of 10·9 was before the Court—presumably a lot of figures were before the Court—but is he now saying that the Court as a whole, even if it did not publish the figure in its Report, accepted 10·9 per cent. as the increase in average earnings which the award proposed?

Mr. Carr: I am saying, and I repeat, that 10·9 per cent. was the cost accepted by the Court on a comparable basis with the employers' offer—

Mrs. Castle: Average earnings.

Mr. Carr: I made it absolutely clear that I was comparing 10·9 per cent. with 9·7 per cent.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman can nit-pick as much as they like—[Interruption.]—the meaning was absolutely clear. The incentive bonus schemes were on offer, were being implemented, would have gone on being implemented if there had been no pay claim, no offer, no Court of Inquiry and, of course, these would have had an effect on the individual earnings in the industry quite regardless of this year's settlement. The lead-in payment was entirely concentrated on trying to speed up implementation of this process which was already going on, and the 10 per cent.—or, to be exact, the 9–7 per cent.—was quite clearly regardless of the effect of the incentive bonus payments—[Interruption.] One might presume. I should have thought, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Lady would have learned the basic facts of life in this industry.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While I will not comment on the elegance of the Secretary of State's favourite phrase "nit-picking", will he accept it from me that I will accept it from him if that means picking his own speeches?
The right hon. Gentleman said on Wednesday last that
The employers estimated that their last offer would have increased average earnings by 9·7 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 527.]
The words are average earnings. The right hon. Gentleman now says that 10·9 per cent. is comparable with that, which must mean average earnings, but since he now admits that he has not allowed for the value of holidays, will he now agree that it was misleading the House to say that it was comparable if it was on an average earnings basis?

Mr. Carr: I certainly will not admit any such thing. The Court's own conclusion was that the holidays question would not add to the labour costs in the end because they would not have to be compensated by any extra overtime. The point is that the effect of the employers' offer was estimated on its own to add 9·7 per cent. to the earnings. The Wilberforce proposals are calculated to add 10·9 per


cent.; that is a fact that is accepted by the Court. But, in addition to this year's offer, there is the continuing effect, which was going on anyhow, of the incentive bonus scheme agreements dating back to 1967. They also are having a continuous effect on the average earnings of individuals, as is shown by the fact that average earnings of individuals in the industry rose by about 15 per cent. in the wages year September 1969 to September 1970.
What the House must realise is that there are two quite separate processes going on at the same time; that is to say, the gradual implementation of the incentive bonus schemes, which is a continuing process, and the annual settlement. The effect of the annual settlement on its own as offered by the employers, would have been 9·7 per cent. and as offered by the Court of Inquiry would have been 10·9 per cent., and the Court of Inquiry as a whole agreed with that interpretation.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that so far from misleading the House as is alleged from the Front Bench opposite, he has answered the questions put to him fairly, frankly and fully, and has made the position quite clear to all right hon. and hon. Members who combine a reasonable degree of capacity with the will to understand?

Mr. Carr: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Orme: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the trade unions have a capacity for ascertaining the wages their members will get? Is he saying that the forecast by the trade unions of 15·7 per cent. is completely inaccurate? Is that what he says? They are looking at wages, and it is average earnings we are talking about and not the global sum which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to pin his hopes on.
Secondly, could he not now ask Lord Wilberforce to submit to this House a statement signed on behalf of the whole Court as to whether the members of the Court accept his figure of 10·9 per cent.?

Mr. Carr: I really do think that the hon. Gentleman and the House ought to develop some sense of responsibility as to whether they want the dispute to be settled or whether they would like it to

go on. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem more concerned to stoke up this trouble, and to stoke up inflation and price increases in this country, more than anything else.
What is true about earnings, the potentiality for earnings in this industry, wag true before the last claim, before the employers' offer and before the Wilber-force proposals, namely, that because of the basic agreement dating back to 1967 for incentive bonus schemes, this is an industry where there is real opportunity for individual earnings to rise substantially and for the labour force to decline at the same time, thereby both increasing average earnings to an exceptional extent while not adding to the labour costs of the industry by anything but a proportion. But this has nothing to do with either the latest claim or the latest offer between the two sides of the industry, or the Wilberforce Committee. That is why earnings are rising so rapidly in this industry and why I hope we all welcome it, because we are seeing in this industry what we want to see in many more fields of British industry, namely, relatively small—in fact, very small—increases in the total wage bill accompanied by substantial increases in individual earnings.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. Mr. Chataway, statement.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister grossly to mislead this House about the present dispute?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept a point of order which begins like that. The content of the Minister's statement could not possibly be a matter of order. Mr. Chataway.

B.B.C. & I.T.V. (FINANCE)

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Government have been concerned at the financial difficulties in which both broadcasting organisations have found themselves. In order to ensure that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. remain in a position to provide services of a high standard,


the Government now propose changes in relation to the financing of both organisations.
First, the finances of the B.B.C.: It will be recalled that under Regulations made in the last Parliament, the licence fee is due to be increased on 1st April next by 50p; that is, from £6 to £6·50 for monochrome television, and from £11 to £11 to·50 for colour television. The B.B.C. has represented to me that this increase of 50p will not suffice; and that it is faced with the prospect of either make severe cuts in its present services or of accumulating a serious deficit which, initially, the B.B.C. put at ·70 million by 31st March, 1975. It considered that licence fees of £7·50 and £12·50 would be needed to meet this situation.
However, after a close review with the B.B.C. of its forecasts, the Government have concluded that the increase in the licence fee should be limited to £1, making it £7 for monochrome and £12 for colour television. This increase is designed to meet the foreseeable needs of the Corporation until March, 1975; the B.B.C. accepts that this should be sufficient for this purpose. The new fees will take effect from 1st July next. The increase of 50p due on 1st April next will not now take effect. The necessary Regulations will be laid as soon as possible.
Second: the Independent Television Authority has represented to me that in the circumstances of a continuing decline in advertising revenue over the last year, together with rising costs, the levy at its present rate is seriously threatening the companies' ability to provide a television service of high quality.
The Government have, therefore, decided, after a careful study of I.T.V.'s finances and of the recent report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, that the rate of the levy should be changed so as to reduce the yield in a full levy year by an estimated £10 million. The Order to give effect to the new scale will be brought before Parliament as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that these reductions will provide Independent Television with the resources that it needs. They are also designed to enable the companies to im-

prove the quality of their programmes and those of Independent Television News. The Authority has assured me that it is its intention to use this opportunity to secure such an improvement. The Government regard the present reduction as a holding measure designed to stabilise I.T.V.'s financial position at least until 31st July, 1972—that is, until the end of the next full levy year. In the meantime, the Government will review the basis on which the levy is charged.

Mr. Richard: The Minister and the House will recognise, I hope, the extraordinarily regressive nature of the statement which the Minister has made. On the one hand, the licence fee is to go up for everybody, and then the television companies are to benefit by no less than £10 million a year.
May I ask one or two specific questions? First, as to the B.B.C., what will this increase actually bring in, in terms of revenue, to the Corporation? Secondly the right hon. Gentleman said that this increase is designed to meet the foreseeable needs of the Corporation until March, 1975, and that the B.B.C. accepts that this should be sufficient for this purpose. May we take it that that sum includes provision for the local radio service which the B.B.C. was going to provide and that there is now, therefore, no financial argument for attempting to curtail the B.B.C.'s proposals for local radio?
As to the levy, may I ask first what is the projected advertising revenue upon which this £10 million reduction is supposed to be based, or is it merely a holding operation? If it is a holding operation pending the review to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, would he recognise that we on this side of the House would welcome such a review provided that it is accepted and that the general principle is established that the public have a right and are entitled as of right to a participation and a share in the revenue of the programme companies?
Finally, on a day when the Minister, in respect of both broadcasting authorities, has had to announce that they are both in major financial trouble, does it not now become clear that his decision to abolish the commission which was to be headed by Lord Annan was extremely


hasty and ill-considered, and is not the case overwhelming for a Royal Commission to look into the whole subject of broadcasting in this country?

Mr. Chataway: It is a sad reflection on the urgency with which the hon. Gentleman would have treated the financial difficulties of the broadcasting organisations had he been in my place, if the meaning of that last remark is that he would have handed over the problem to the Annan Committee which was concerned with broadcasting after 1976. Our reason for not proceeding with the very curious Annan Committee was that we took the view—not unreasonably, I would have thought—that to settle into a pattern of committee reports of this kind every 10 years, the last five or six years of each 10 being taken up with an inquiry, would be a very unhappy situation.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about finance, these increases for the B.B.C. will bring in £l6 million extra each year. In addition to that, there is, of course, an increased revenue to the B.B.C. which arises from the increased sale of colour sets.
As far as 1975 is concerned, and the other services, I am satisfied that whatever decision is taken about the allocation of frequencies and functions between the B.B.C. and the new independent radio service, £7 is none the less the right figure for the B.B.C.'s licence fee. Obviously, if after 1972, or whenever the date might be, the B.B.C. were to make alterations in some of its radio services, this would give it greater room for manœuvre in other directions, but the fact is that since these changes can only take effect towards the end of the period we are considering—in the last year or two—the sums involved are from the point of view of this exercise fairly marginal.
As regards the commercial television companies, I cannot do better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, a Report which was commissioned by the previous Administration and which shows very clearly that if the commercial television companies are to continue to provide an adequate service and to see anything like a reasonable

return on capital a very substantial reduction in the levy is needed.

Mr. Richard: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the last point I made. What I asked him on the levy was this: is this a holding operation pending a review, or is the £10 million designed to be a considered reduction based on the criteria of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Chataway: It is a considered reduction based on the criteria of the National Board; and the Government take the view that the levy is not an entirely satisfactory instrument. We should like to see an alternative system introduced if we can find it. Therefore, it will be the intention to study with the I.T.A. a range of alternative suggestions with a view to trying to introduce an alternative by July, 1972.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to give priority in calling hon. Members to ask supplementaries to those who had Questions on the Order Paper today on this matter.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish commercial contractors under the abatement he has proposed today will escape the levy altogether? If so, is my right hon. Friend aware that this will be very welcome in Scotland, where the commercial contractors alone have made a serious effort to provide regional services? On the other hand, is he aware that the increase in the B.B.C. licence fee will not be particularly welcome, because the B.B.C.'s attempts to provide regional services in Scotland are largely confined to the horizons of the city of Glasgow and that B.B.C.2 is unobtainable in very large areas of Scotland?

Mr. Chataway: I cannot confirm that Scotish television will not be liable for any levy payments whatsoever, but I believe that this reduction will be of help to Scottish television and will tide it over what I know has been a very difficult period indeed. I take note of my hon. Friend's other observations.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the £7 licence fee proposed for the B.B.C. in July will be inadequate to enable the Corporation to avoid a decrease in the quality of programmes, for which the Corporation is rightly renowned, and particularly in view of the increasing inflation which will erode much of the increase that the right hon. Gentleman has announced? What assurances has the right hon. Gentleman had or is he seeking that the £10 million reduction in the levy will result in improved programmes from the I.T.A.?

Mr. Chataway: The Corporation does not believe that the £7 licence fee will be inadequate in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. The Corporation believes that this increase should be sufficient to enable it to maintain the quality of its programmes. It is strange for the hon. Gentleman to be criticising us for setting a licence fee of £7 at this moment when, as he knows, the previous Administration deliberately shelved this issue and they were criticised by us when we were in Opposition for having deferred the licence increase to £6 10s. for almost two years. It is largely that deferment which has put the B.B.C. so far into the red and brought about so many of the present difficulties.
I have already indicated that the Independent Television Authority has assured me that it believes that the arrangements which are now proposed should enable there to be an improvement in programme quality.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I recognise that the relief to be given to the independent television companies is fair and perhaps overdue. What is the total which has been paid by the companies in levy and in corporation tax to the Exchequer? Is the £10 million reduction an across-the-board reduction or is it weighted in favour of the small and medium-size companies? Will any of the companies be exempt?

Mr. Chataway: The levy has been running at about £22 million a year. The reduction will be a help to the small companies, because although the Independent Television Authority is increasing its rentals by £3½ million it will be apportioning the rentals in such a way as to lighten the burden on the smaller companies. Four of the smallest companies will have substantial rental reductions despite the overall increase in the rentals.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: All the figures which the Minister gave in answer to the last supplementary but one were known to him and the Prime Minister before the last General Election, but even that knowledge did not stop the Prime Minister from saying that he would reduce prices at a stroke. Has the Minister had discussions with the Prime Minister—if not, will he do so—to see whether, rather than increase the licence fee, he will now take the opportunity of at least implementing one of his promises, namely, to reduce prices at a stroke?

Mr. Chataway: That is very typical of the totally inaccurate charges that are so often levelled from the benches opposite. The record will show that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the debate in December, 1969, positively criticised the then Government for having deferred the increase to £6 10s. and made it clear that the B.B.C.'s finances required an earlier increase. It is largely because in this field, as in so many others, the previous Government were prepared to pass on the bill to us that we now face the increase that we do. Having said that, however, it will be absolutely clear that this Administration have subjected the application that the B.B.C. has put to us to a very rigorous scrutiny.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the increase in licence fees will undoubtedly hit a number of old and sick people who are provided with sets by charitable organisations but who must themselves find the licence fee and, as to such people a set is sometimes their only remaining interest in life, will my right hon. Friend enter into discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to finding a means of cushioning the impact of these further increases on this limited but important section of people?

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the importance of the point raised by my right hon. Friend and I will certainly discuss the matter, as he suggests, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. My right hon. Friend and the House will know that successive Governments have maintained the principle that benefits in kind are not the right way to help. The view has been taken, therefore, by successive Governments that it would not be appropriate to make reductions for specific categories.

Mr. Whitehead: All those in the House who are concerned about broadcasting will welcome the Minister's statement that extra revenue is to be made available. However, can the Minister give two assurances?
First, can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the extra hand-out to the I.T.V. companies will be made available only to those companies which can give an assurance that the money will not be spent in that diversification into bingo halls and motorway cafes which has distinguished many of the larger companies?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman now recommend to the I.T.A. that it carries out another recommendation of the P.I.B. to the effect that where a change of control has taken place within an I.T.V. company there should be mergers or a renegotiation of the tender and not a mere acquiescence in that change of control?

Mr. Chataway: The latter was not a recommendation in the P.I.B. Report; and it raises a number of interesting questions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman of all people—a former employee of I.T.V.—should refer to this as a handout to the independent television companies, as I thought that he would know better than many people here that the levy has borne very hard on a very large number of the companies. It is only the diversification that has taken place in previous years that has enabled a large number of the companies to maintain the programmes as they have; because many companies that have been running their television services at a loss—Granada and others—have been able to do so because of the interests they have spread across quite a wide range of fields.

Sir R. Cary: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on lifting the 10s. originally suggested to an increase of £1 for the B.B.C. I am sure that that will bring great comfort to the Corporation, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, even with that increase, the service will still remain one of the cheapest in Europe?

Mr. Chalaway: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: First, on the question of the levy itself, will arrangements be made SO that the largest amount of relief from the levy does not go to the

largest companies? The right hon. Gentleman has not talked about the distribution of the levy. Will he say something about that, because there may be a tendency for companies which do not need it to receive the most relief?
Second, as regards the review, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a different application of the levy so as to ensure that the revenue goes towards programme expenditure and not just to profits? For example, will he consider the possibility of deduction from gross income less certified programme expenditure?

Mr. Chataway: I have seen that suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in a letter to the Press. It is an interesting point which we ought to bear in mind in the review of the levy which we shall be undertaking, as I said, with a view to trying to find an alternative before 1972. On the first point, the I.T.A. will be doing all it can by means of the rental to ensure that the cross-subsidisation which there already is between television companies is carried a stage further to enable those smallest companies, which have the most difficulty, to provide a good service.

Captain W. Elliot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of this increase, taking into account the amount of entertainment and education which is provided, the average viewer gets his service dirt-cheap? In the circumstances, would it not be reasonable to reconsider the whole thing, so that people who can do so pay a realistic price and categories of people who cannot pay the higher figure are allowed a lower licence fee?

Mr. Chataway: I should consider any specific proposals which my hon. and gallant Friend cares to put to me, but I believe that he would find it extremely difficult to work the kind of system which he has just proposed.

Mr. Urwin: In view of the Government's abysmal failure to fulfil their election pledges to control prices, let alone reduce them, and in view of the deleterious effect of the increase especially upon old-age pensioners, will the right hon. Gentleman pay more serious attention to the suggestion made by his right hon.


Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)? If something could be done along the lines of a 50 per cent. reduction in licence fee, I am sure that it would be well worth consideration.

Mr. Chataway: There is a choice to be made here. If large concessions are to be made which will substantially reduce the income of the B.B.C., obviously, poorer services or fewer services will be provided by the Corporation. In the circumstances which we have found to prevail in the Corporation, we believe that the increase to £7 is the minimum necessary for the continued provision of good services.

Mr. John Mendelson: But does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although the B.B.C. needs the increased income, and there will be general support for it in the country, there have been widespread demands by old-age pensioners' associations that the Government should provide a sum of money to allow retirement pensioners living alone—as individuals or as couples, both retirement pensioners—to have a licence fee concession bringing the fee down to 50

per cent. of the actual figure? The right hon. Gentleman must know that this scheme has been worked out. It would relieve retirement pensioners living alone, and can he not persuade the Government to spend a sum of money to that end?

Mr. Chataway: Principally, that must be a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. It must be for him to decide whether the sort of sum which would be involved in providing a service of that kind would be justified in relation to the other demands upon him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60A (Second Reading Committees).

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

4.15 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South): I ask for the indulgence of the House, the more so because Ulstermen are not by nature non-controversial, and, further, because I recall the advice given to new Ulster Members at the beginning of this Parliament by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he suggested that we have a duty to bring reality into what is sometimes a rather academic debate.
The right hon. Gentleman's words on that occasion impressed me greatly. They were typical of his civilised approach to our problems when he was Home Secretary. Even those who viewed the consequences of certain policies with a degree of pessimism and foreboding never doubted his sincerity and his genuine desire to help. For personal reasons also, I have cause to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that he played some part in retaining the constituency boundaries as they were at the time of the General Election, which had the effect of leaving me in South Antrim with an electorate of 144,000, the largest in the United Kingdom. It was probably for that reason, and not for any special merit of mine, that I received almost 60,000 votes, again a United Kingdom record.
By contrast, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes now to slash my electorate to a mere 108,000, still the largest, but, after all, a poor reward for my having joined him in our nocturnal exercises in the Division Lobby, which, undoubtedly, are doing a great deal to improve both our figures—though I think that the House will agree that the improvement in my case has been rather more apparent than in his.
Grateful as I am for the opportunity to discuss the Home Secretary's responsibilities in regard to Northern Ireland, I recognise that my predecessor, Sir Knox Cunningham, could have opened this debate with far more skill and greater eloquence, and, may I say, with a heavier punch. Nevertheless, I shall do my best, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East suggested, to deal in realities and try to set the level of this debate above that of charge and countercharge at this critical time in our history.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this time mainly concerned with the activities of the illegal I.R.A., I shall, at the risk, perhaps, of appearing to speak in defence of the Irish Republican Army, say that I have noticed that people on this side of the water tend to regard members of that organisation as, so to speak, Irish "skinheads" of some sort, tending to heap abuse upon them and their anarchist allies. In fact, in their modem form, they are a powerful force, well organised, well led, financed by brilliantly executed bank raids north and south of the Border and by generous grants from Eire Government funds, with or without the sanction of the Members of that body. They are by no means to be underestimated.
The present Irish Republican Army assault on Northern Ireland began in 1956, and this first stage lasted for some six years. It failed because the security front consisting of the Army, the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, backed by resolute government, could not be broken. The attackers therefore were unable to hold any area long enough to impose their will, intimidate the population and force them to co-operate.
In 1962, the I.R.A. General Staff called a halt to permit reorganisation. There then followed the greatest rethink in the history of the Republican movement. Its leaders realised that they were working against time, and I can remember, when on a business trip to Dublin in 1965, being told by a senior officer of the Republican movement who, strangely enough, mistook me for a sympathiser:
We must strike soon before our people in the North are demoralised by education grants and the Welfare State.
They worked hard. They recruited, brilliant leaders of the extreme new left,.


and this time they got it right. I quote their conclusions which are contained in an authentic I.R.A. document issued early in 1968:
Our STRATEGY, if it is to succeed must be the perfect blending of Politics and violence … at the most opportune time and under the most favourable circumstances. … We will not succeed in winning support for our policy and ideas by mere propaganda publicity: We must at every possible occasion involve ourselves in any agitation or issue that is part of Republican policy, and it should be made known to the public at large that Republicans are involved and helping in the particular cause at issue. For instance, in one area recently there has been a series of protests and demonstrations regarding poor and inadequate housing conditions, the majority of the members of the committees which were responsible for organising the protests are members of the R.A.
By 1968, they were ready to resume the offensive and, with anarchist leaders of brilliant intellect, they enlisted the help of the protest industry and the publicity industry. This time, the security front cracked, not, I would hasten to add, through any fault of the men on the ground. This enabled them to set up their communes and impose their will on those who lived in the so-called "free" areas. They established their own courts, executed their own sentences and collected their revenue in the form of protection money. I might say in a lighter vein that there were compensations for the people in those areas because, I am told, they did not have to worry about such matters as motor taxation, television licences and, for all I know, income tax which beset the rest of us lesser mortals.
With stage 2 completed and the bases secured, the inevitable third stage has now developed, and we are now seeing for the first time in Western Europe a demonstration of urban guerrilla warfare.
Our Army has met this honestly and with great courage, all the greater because they realise that there is no easy way out. Even when the long shooting phase is over, they will have great difficulty in extricating themselves because of the apparent decision of August, 1969, that the Army should replace the civil power instead of merely supporting it.
The military were implicated still further by the implementation of the Hunt Committee's Report, which contains some admirable sentiments but which, as everyone now realises, was not realistic in its

conclusions. Had its terms of reference included investigation into the I.R.A. and had it been possible for it to recommend the disbanding of that body, then of course a civilianised Royal Ulster Constabulary would have been acceptable. Consequently, as my predecessor in South Antrim predicted in 1969,
… the Army has been given an impossible task and will be engaged in that task for years, not months.
One shares the anguish of the relatives, families and friends of those who are killed and injured, and one appreciates the enormous strain on the troops. Like the Royal Ulster Constabulary before them, they have had to endure a deluge of abuse after every incident—exactly the same, word for word and lie for lie. Chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the anarchist textbook apparently decrees that automatic charges of brutality should be made after every incident, with synthetic evidence to follow at early convenience. Their accusers are not naive enough to imagine that the Army, too, will be disarmed, disbanded and phased out, but they believe, with a certain amount of justification, that others will waver if enough manufactured complaints are produced.
When theories and policies are upset, it is not unusual for people to indulge in witch hunts. So it is in this case. The latest victim is the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Hon. Members will have seen the critical article in The Times last Friday, and I believe that Universe has now joined in the chorus.
While I concede that the church was probably unwise, even in its own interests, to become involved in the offensives of 1968–69, I am bound to say as a Protestant that it is monstrous to suggest that church men are now shirking their duties. What can they do? How long would a priest or Catholic layman survive in one of those commune areas if he went in and proceeded to exhort people to obey the lawful authorities if that lawful authority was nowhere in sight?
As for the general problem, it may possibly save time later in the debate if we discard the solutions which, quite frankly, are non-starters. The first and most popular is the suggestion of getting the three Governments round a table. That is an attractive but futile idea since the I.R.A. and their anarchist friends are utterly opposed to all three Governments.


They are equally hostile to Stormont and to Dublin. What possible good could come of any agreement reached between the three Governments?
Another suggestion sometimes put forward is that of direct rule from Westminster. This is what the Ulster Unionists wanted originally in 1921. That again would make not a scrap of difference to the attitude of the gunmen.
The reforms which most of us would support are surrounded by an odd superstition that, in some way, they are relevant to the situation in which we are now involved. But in my opinion this is not so, and I want to quote one of the brilliant leaders of the new left who have been actively involved in the troubles and demonstrations. I refer to a certain Michael Farrell. He is on record as saying:
We don't want reform in Northern Ireland —we want revolution in Ireland.
It appears therefore that they would be equally opposed to everything which could be put forward. I would not associate myself with Michael Farrell and certainly I would not accept anything that he stands for, but I have no reason to believe that he is untruthful or dishonest. When he says that he wants revolution and not reform, I have no choice but to believe him.
There is another suggested solution. It was originally mentioned by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. It is that all licensed guns should be called in. However, I do not think that there is much evidence that licensed arms have been a factor in any of the disturbances. I doubt very much whether machine guns, nail bombs and booby traps are held on licence, in any case. If we had taken such a course, the same measures would obviously have had to apply to Eire, or the hardware would continue to come across the border in the dead of night.
Perhaps we could move from those rather futile suggested solutions to those which might be effective, but some of which might not be acceptable to some people. The first is internment. I have an open mind on this. I think that it could be done successfully in Eire, and probably will be done there, but I doubt whether it can be done by Stormont without another deluge of criticism.
The second suggestion is that we might open up the communes and free the

Catholic people inside from intimidation, and therefore deprive the I.R.A. of its bases. But that would provoke protests, and no doubt liberal opinion would demand a retreat.
We might try to re-establish the authority of the R.U.C. by restoring its protective equipment, but no doubt Republicans would also regard that as some kind of provocation.
The fourth suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might like to consider is giving greater help from Scotland Yard. I understand that the Scotland Yard men in Northern Ireland at present appear to act with greater firmness and confidence than their counterparts in the R.U.C. I think that this is simply because they have been consistently supported and defended by successive Home Secretaries.
In the longer term we might work towards bringing the security forces under one agency, and that agency must obviously be the Stormont Parliament. Here again we would face a certain amount of vocal opposition.
But the power to decide resides here in this House. If we reject all the workable solutions, we burden the Army with this heavy responsibility for many years, with the risk of deeper involvement if the forces of international subversion decide at any time that the British Army must be bogged down and kept off the world scene.
I am not entirely without hope. Provided people in the United Kingdom are realistic and recognise the real nature of the problem, and provided too, that future Stormont Governments and Parliaments are assured of automatic support from this Parliament and future Governments here when the next offensive is launched, I think we can look to the future with greater confidence.
The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are keen to make their contribution to the greater unit of the United Kingdom, just as we, their representatives in this House, try to play our part. Collectively, Ulster men and women will do what is asked of them, as they have done in the past, both in peace and in war.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West): It is the custom of the House to congratulate


a maiden speaker, and I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), in conformity with the traditions of the House. But, needless to say, I am diametrically and vehemently opposed to every sentiment that the hon. Gentleman uttered.
The debate is taking place ostensibly on the responsibilities of the Home Secretary for affairs in Northern Ireland. From that point of view I welcome the debate, because we are asked to state our attitudes and listen to the Home Secretary say whether he will accept the responsibilities that have devolved upon him under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. For far too many years, since the unnatural partition of the island of Ireland, every successive Home Secretary has signally failed to live up to his responsibilities. All Home Secretaries have neglected to bear the responsibilities placed upon them by the 1920 Act. So here today, after 50 years of Unionist Government in Northern Ireland, with the tragedy that is on almost every doorstep of innocent people in the City of Belfast, we are forced to look at what the partition settlement brought about in 1920.
There are people, possibly throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly in Northern Ireland, who will say that Ireland was partitioned because a majority of people in the six counties of North-Eastern Ireland wanted to maintain their connection with the United Kingdom. That is only one part of the answer, because in fact Ireland was partitioned on the worst possible basis of all. Ireland was partitioned because there was a 65 per cent. Protestant majority there in favour of maintaining links with the United Kingdom and a 35 per cent. Roman Catholic minority who wanted to be part and parcel of a sovereign, independent Irish nation.
All the seeds of turmoil and tragedy that we are discussing were sown at the very second that the Act became law. Whether the Unionist Members of Parliament at Stormont at that time had the approval of the Government here or not, it meant that they were handcuffed to a decision taken in this Parliament, and they had to discriminate. It was the job of the Unionist Party, as it would have

been of any other political party there at the time, to perpetuate its own existence. That is recognised in politics. The only way in which the Unionist Party could perpetuate itself and ensure a continuation of its rule of Northern Ireland was by discriminating in favour of the 65 per cent. Protestant bloc and against the 35 per cent. minority in Northern Ireland. Whether the Unionists liked it or not, no alternative was open to them. I am prepared to concede that there may have been many people within the ranks of the Unionist Party who did not like having to take such decisions against one-third of their fellow countrymen, but that is what has happened for 50 years.
The 35 per cent. minority were forced to live in areas like Derry, Newry, Strabane, Ballymurphy, the New Falls Road and Ardoyne, all names now heard daily on television and seen in reports of riots in Northern Ireland. They were ghettoes deliberately set up by the Unionist Party, areas deliberately isolated from industrial expansion. I remember coming here in 1966 and asking how other hon. Members would feel if there were 25 per cent. unemployment in their constituencies. I was referring, of course, to the city of Derry, and I appealed for any economic assistance that could be given by the Government here to ease the situation in Derry. I do not know whether the British Government believe that they did a good job, but the unemployment figure there were down from 25 per cent. to 19 per cent., and now it is 29 per cent. Fifty per cent. of the males in the Ballymurphy area are unemployed. In Newry the figure is 23 per cent. and in Strabane 29 per cent. Those are all areas where there is a nationalist, anti-Unionist majority. Despite all the objections from the Unionist Party, I contend that that unemployment resulted from deliberate industrial isolation. With all the financial assistance and industrial incentives given to the Unionist Party to attract industry, all the industrial development took place in Belfast and the area within a 30-mile radius of that city. That is where the Unionist majority is now, and where it has always been.
The Unionist Party never had any right to claim the six counties of Northern Ireland. In 1920, as in 1971, the Unionists' strength was in the city of


Belfast and in the surrounding areas to a radius of 30 miles. Had Ireland been partitioned according to the wishes of the people, there would not have been the partition which we now know. Tyrone, Fermanagh and part of South Down and Armagh and other areas would not have been in the six counties, but an Act of this Parliament created a situation for which the then Home Secretary here was responsible and partitioned Ireland on a most unnatural basis.
I do not want to refer too much to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South, but he seemed once again to be advocating further repression. Since partition in 1920, Northern Ireland has had the Special Powers Act, the iron militia known as the B-Specials, an iron R.U.C. and all the attachments that I can describe only as the trappings of a police state. If that repressive legislation has been a failure, as it has been shown to be, because, after 50 years of repressive legislation, we find ourselves facing a period of tragedy in Northern Ireland, how can further repression relieve the situation? I have no hesitation in saying that further attempts at repression will only exacerbate the situation and escalate existing tensions, and they might lead to a tragic toll of death, particularly among innocent people, not only in Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland.
What are the British Government to do in this situation? The hon. Gentleman blamed everything which has happened in Northern Ireland in recent years on the I.R.A. That is patently incorrect. I know, because I was involved in political life in Northern Ireland long before the hon. Gentleman. I should not be in the least surprised if the hon. Gentleman told us that the I.R.A. was responsible for the failure of Rolls-Royce. He and his party have seen the I.R.A. under the bed on each and every occasion. They invented it when it did not exist. I am prepared to say here and now that there are more Irish Republican Army men in Northern Ireland today than ever before in the history of that State.
As I have said here and at Stormont, I have never supporWted the Irish Republican Army in its campaign of violence in Northern Ireland. I have opposed it at all times and I shall continue to oppose

anyone who initiates a campaign of violence which can only kill and maim innocent people. I have no hesitation in re-stating that position and nor do I make any apology for it.
The hon. Gentleman said that the I.R.A. was engaged in a war against the British Army, in a campaign to do away with the constitution of Northern Ireland. He conveniently forgot that in August, 1969, after a long hard battle had been won in this House, a battle for social justice in Northern Ireland and to bring about reforms in Northern Ireland, to bring about equality of citizenship and a state of affairs in which there would not he first-class and second-class citizens, one feeling a little superior to another, with all the seeds of discontent that that sows, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) visited Northern Ireland.
He said that he was amazed and appalled by what he found in Northern Ireland. The very fact of his using the words condemned the inability of his predecessors to take account of what was happening in what was allegedly an integral part of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend said that he was amazed by the situation and he set up the Hunt Committee, with the concurrence of the Northern Ireland Government, and the Cameron Inquiry. The Cameron Report confirmed the charges which I had levelled throughout the years I had been in this House.
Some Unionist Members opposite must have been extremely embarrassed by the conclusion of the Cameron Report. I am not being specific because I know that there are honourable men in the House representing Northern Irish constituencies. In a radio interview last week, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said that he had hoped that the Northern Ireland Government would have carried out the reform programme without any nudging from this Government, that reforms should have been made many years ago. But when I was asking for those reforms, the hon. Member said that they were not necessary. However, eventually the day of reckoning arrived.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to Northern Ireland and met the people, and, to the best of his ability,


took whatever steps seemed necessary to bring about a just society, and a reform programme was initiated. I had hoped that the reform programme would immediately be escalated as the troubles became evident. I proved to be incorrect.
The then British Government gave unstinting support to the Unionist Government, then led by Captain Terence O'Neill, who was subsequently forced to resign by the right-wing extremists of his own party. The new Prime Minister took office and did exactly the thing which everyone in Ireland hoped would be the last thing he would do—he surrendered to the right wing of the Unionist Party. During the reign of Captain Terence O'Neill we had a Portadown parallel and three of the men most prominent in that Parliament, fighting tenaciously to retain influence and impose their right-wing views, continued in the Government of Northern Ireland, and one is now the Minister of State at the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry): Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far away from what he was talking about, discrimination and so on, may I ask him whether he has not read with satisfaction that Sir Edmund Compton said the other day that the average citizen in Northern Ireland was better treated by Government than the average citizen in this country? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to applaud that.

Mr. Fitt: I have read the report. I must make it clear that Sir Edmund Compton is at variance with the valid criticisms made by Lord Justice Scarman who was appointed by this House to inquire into what was happening. It cannot be said that Sir Edmund Compton was all right and the Cameron Report all wrong, because most people in the United Kingdom who are aware of the situation are agreed with the findings of the Cameron Report.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick): My hon. Friend will remember that Sir Edmund Compton would never have been appointed as Ombudsman to Northern Ireland but for the pressure of hon. Members on this side of the House, against the resistance of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the Northern Ireland Government have appointed a Commissioner of Complaints to deal with complaints about local authorities? I wonder whether he will be able to persuade his hon. Friends to do the same thing here so as to introduce a similar form of democracy here.

Mr. Fitt: If the hon. Gentleman wants a Commissioner for Complaints he should have discussions with his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
Throughout this period we had a state of uncertainty in Northern Ireland with one-third of the population callously and effectively excluded from taking any part in the government of the country. There was one party in control at Stormont and a permanent Opposition because of the political and religious bias built into the State when it was originally set up. People were not allowed to participate in the running of their country. These people were not all members of the Irish Republican Army, they were people who wanted to play a part. We are now having to answer for those sins.
What steps are the British Government prepared to take? The reforms promulgated with the co-operation of the Stormont Government would never have taken place had it not been for the fact that there was then a Labour Government in power here. To the man in the street in Northern Ireland those reforms mean nothing. There was talk about unemployment. Before these "reforms" unemployment in Derry was 19 per cent. Now it is 27 per cent. If this is "reform" then it is unacceptable to the unemployed.
The Minister of State at the Ministry of Home Affairs was well known as an opponent of the moderate Unionists within the Northern Ireland Party. He was appointed to placate the energies of the right wing, then being directed towards unseating the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. The first thing he did was to issue, day after day, all sorts of gun licences. At present in Northern Ireland there are 72,000 guns issued on licence. In 1969, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was in Northern Ireland there were 69,000 such guns.


My right hon. Friend thought the situation so serious then that he said that he felt there were far too many guns held throughtout Northern Ireland. Far from there being an improvement there has been a deterioration. It was highly irresponsible for the Minister of State to issue guns in such a discriminate way. The hon. Member for Antrim, South said he did not believe that the guns held on licence had been used during the troubles. Certainly there were machine guns used and I strongly condemn this, but there were people who lost their lives as a result of shotgun fire. The shotguns could have been on licence from the Ministry of Home Affairs. I am not sure whether they were held on licence by Catholics or Protestants, but they should not have been made so freely available.
The hon. Member, who will no doubt be supported by his hon. Friends, blames all the shooting going on at present on the I.R.A. Much of it is its responsibility, but there have been a lot of incidents recently in Northern Ireland with no conclusive proof as to the involvement of the I.R.A. I do not think that hon. Members are prepared to forget that in October, 1969, there was a violent outbreak of gunfighting in the Shankill Road, not in the Falls Road, and the shooting was done by people who at one time called themselves Unionist supporters. We cannot put the total blame for all the violence in Northern Ireland on one section of the community.
The people living in my constituency of Belfast, West will remember for as long as they live the terrible holocaust which took place in 1969 when 500 homes were burned to the ground and eight lives lost. My right hon. Friend was able to see the terrible devastation in Bombay Street. Those people will not forget that and neither will their sons or daughters. Almost everyone in Northern Ireland has memories if not of last week's or last year's troubles, then of troubles in the '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s and '60s.
How can a State, built upon such a shaky foundation, ever hope to continue and to emerge as a just society, bringing together warring sections within it? I believe that it is an utter impossibility. In Northern Ireland at present we have 48,000 unemployed. A civil rights meeting in Belfast yesterday was addressed

by a prominent member, he is either the chairman or deputy-chairman of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. He is quoted in the Press this morning as saying that there were still basic discriminations taking place in Belfast shipyards and engineering works.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, South): Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the citizens of the Irish Republic who are at present in England, Scotland and Wales, had not immigrated to this country but had stayed in the Republic the unemployment situation in the Free State would be far greater than it is in Northern Ireland? Would he not further agree that because they immigrated to this country for good wages they helped their country, whereas the unemployed people in Northern Ireland—a large percentage of them in the areas mentioned—will not go to work because of unemployment and maternity benefits and such assistance?

Mr. Fitt: I regard that remark as totally irrelevant to the debate. All I would say is that there would not be any MI or many main roads in Britain if that migration had not taken place. In addition many of the hospitals here would be badly understaffed.
We recognised that there was a great deal of animosity fear and hostility towards the B Specials. Then it was disbanded and the U.D.R. took its place. At that time we appealed to the Labour Government to ensure that recruitment would make the regiment representative of the entire community. The fear was expressed that what would happen would be that the B Specials would join the U.D.R. en bloc. We were given guarantees that recruitment would be slowed down to such a level, perhaps not so as to exclude people of a certain religion from joining the force, but at least to make it less attractive.
What has happened since the election of the Conservative Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked whether the Government were sticking to the same policy of limiting recruitment to the force in the hope that it may recruit members of minorities. He was told in no uncertain terms that the pledge given by the Labour Government meant


absolutely nothing to the present Government. That means that the majority of members in the U.D.R. are former members of the Ulster Special Constabulary. How can we expect a community that has lived in fear of the B Specials simply to accept a change of uniform? There is a good deal of antagonism towards the U.D.R. and I urge the Government to take a close look at this because it appears that former B Specials are being given duties in directions that appear to be politically opposed to the English Government. They are acting in a very nasty way by unnecessarily holding up traffic and carrying out searches. I hope that the Government will look at this matter because the U.D.R. is in existence and I know that the House wants it to succeed.
We have heard about what were called reforms but which were not reforms—the U.D.R., the unemployment figures, housing and the issuing of guns. Allied to all this there is economic back-tracking by the Conservative Government. They do not have the same philosophy as my hon. Friends and it would probably be much against their will if further aid was given to Northern Ireland to the detriment of other regions of the United Kingdom. If this happens it will prove to be absolutely disastrous because if there is any increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland it will only mean that more men will be standing idle on street corners and there could be something which fortunately has not yet happened on the streets, namely a sectarian war.
I have no hesitation in saying, having lived in Northern Ireland all my life and having read Irish history, that this is the most dangerous period which Northern Ireland has undergone in its long history. The infliction of pain on ordinary decent people who are caught up in the ghettoes in Northern Ireland, with riots taking place on their doorsteps almost every night, is unparalleled.
I know that the point I am about to make is a very touchy one and I accept it as such, and possibly some of my hon. Friends will not go all the way with me on it, but I must refer to what has happened in Northern Ireland as a result of searching by the British Army over the past two or three weeks. There is absolutely no doubt that the searches con-

ducted by the British Army in the highly emotional areas led to the trouble which has occurred in the past two or three weeks. The British Army is obviously acting on misleading information because the number of illegal arms found in the houses which were searched was almost negligible.
For example, a fortnight ago ten houses were searched in one street. One shotgun was found, and that was held under licence. The search was carried out at ten o'clock in the morning in a Catholic area in the Kashmir Road. There is an industrial establishment on the other side of the Springfield Road where the vast majority of the employees are non-Catholic. Once those employees saw the British Army searching that Catholic area, they stood behind the Army. They made rude gestures with their fingers, jeered and sang party songs which naturally caused retaliation from the other side. This built into a devilish situation. One had to be there to appreciate the emotions which were felt. This was all brought about as a result of the Army acting on misleading information.
I suggest that before the Army acts on information it should be very careful that it is not being used by some illegal force, be it the I.R.A. or the Protestant extremists—because either of them could give misleading information—with the intention of creating a confrontation.
I stress that I am not speaking as a Catholic Member of Parliament. I am a Socialist Member of Parliament. There is a majority of Protestants in my constituency and many of them voted for me, against their tradition, at elections in which I have been elected as a Member of this House. I am speaking on their behalf as well. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) knows that to his disadvantage.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: Not on this occasion.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak.
In 1969 it was proved conclusively that most of the arms were not used by those on the Catholic side because it has been proved that they did not have them then.


Every newspaper report and analysis made has proved beyond all possible doubt that any arms which were held at that time were held by people who formerly considered themselves to be members of the Unionist Party.
Members of the Catholic community bitterly resent the fact that the vast majority of the searches of the British Army are taking place in Catholic ghettos and no attempt seems to be made to disarm the other warring side of the community. I should like to see every missile and firearm in Northern Ireland, belonging to both Protestants and Catholics, thrown on a bonfire and burned, but one can understand the feeling of the Catholics. They say, "We are being disarmed, but what will happen if there is a repeat of August, 1969? We shall have no means of defence at all".

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of troops being very sure of the ground on which they embark on a search, but he will appreciate that in the last 12 months something approaching 40,000 rounds of ammunition and about 282 different types of weapon have been found in searches. He will appreciate that we take great care before embarking on searches to ensure that the information is reasonably reliable.

Mr. Fitt: Ten houses in the Kashmir Road were searched and one shotgun was found which was held under licence, so the Army could not have taken care before that search was initiated. Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute. The Army must have been acting on misleading information on that occasion.
The Army should carry out searches all over Northern Ireland to ensure that illegally-held arms are taken from people who might attempt to use them to cause violence among the community. One would hope that the Army could be effectively withdrawn from Northern Ireland and that a massacre would not take place in its wake. One would hope that the R.U.C. would be readily able to enter every district, street, village, town and hamlet in Northern Ireland as a police service—we do not like the word "force" in Northern Ireland; we have had it for far too long.
Can we entirely blame the Catholic people in Northern Ireland for having

suspicions about the R.U.C.? Eleven members of the R.U.C. were found to have been involved in a ferocious attack on the Devenney home in Derry and a person appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, namely, the former Inspector General in Northern Ireland, said that he had no doubt that they were involved. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said at the Dispatch Box in Stormont, "I appeal to the guilty men involved in this incident to make themselves known. I appeal to any member of the R.U.C. who knows the guilty men to tell us who they are so that we can take appropriate action against them". But there was not a murmur. Those eleven men are still members of the R.U.C. They did not own up to what happened, and neither did their many friends in the R.U.C. who must have known who had been involved in what took place at the Devenney household on that tragic evening.
Why should people in Northern Ireland have great confidence in the R.U.C.? People in Catholic areas look at an R.U.C. man and say," That is possibly one of the men who beat the brains out of Mr. Devenney with a police baton". [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] This is what people are saying. Mr. Devenney was beaten by the police and he died. That is one reason why we cannot have the confidence which we should like to have in a civilianised police force.

Mr. John E. Maginnis (Armagh): rose—

Mr. Fitt: I will not give way.
I know that many hon. Members are absolutely straining at the leash to contradict every word I have said, but what I say is that there must be no rearmament of the R.U.C., and that there must be no attempt to use the draconian powers of internment, because if there were any attempt to bring about internment in Northern Ireland it would bring about not only a holocaust in Northern Ireland but a great tragedy to the people of that island and of this island as well. Internment itself would solve absolutely nothing, and I am happy to say that some hon. Members on the Government side today agree with me that internment is not the answer to the present troubles in Northern Ireland.
What is the answer to this? We have heard the hon. Member for Antrim, South


say that there is no answer, or that the only answer must be replacement—

Mr. Molyneaux: I did not say anything of the kind and I hope the hon. Member will kindly withdraw that remark.

Mr. Fitt: What the hon. Member said was that reforms in Northern Ireland were not necessary, that we were engaged in international subversion, that there were Marxists and Communists fomenting trouble in Northern Ireland. That is not true. There is certainly no Communistic influence in Northern Ireland at the moment. If there is, it is very, very minor. Hon. Members here know that those who are referred to as the Provisional Wing of the I.R.A. are bitterly opposed to Communism, and that has been made very clear only as recently as this morning. Though they are called Marxists they are probably more against Fascism than international Socialism.
In the situation in which we find ourselves today I believe that a new political initiative must be taken by this Government. There must be a realisation that things can never go back to what they were before 1968. We cannot go back to the 1920 Act as that has been found to be wanting. There is no Act of Parliament which is sacrosanct. I have heard it repeatedly said in this House that no attempt must be made to tamper with the 1920 Act. I have often questioned the validity of that sort of thinking, because the world is changing—there are men on the moon; the Tories have nationalised Rolls-Royce.
Certainly the 1920 Act has been proved to be wanting. I suggest that that Act, however, made some provision for proportional representation in Northern Ireland, and I believe that proportional representation would do a lot to take the heat out of the present situation, because I believe that moderately minded people who are opposed to violence, be it from Marxism or from wherever it may come, be it from the Unionist side or from the Catholic minority side, would see it as one positive step which should be taken.
I am not being partisan, but I think that another positive step which could be taken within the next 24 hours would be

the release of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) from prison to look after the interests of his constituents. That would certainly do a great deal to help. I believe that that man is in prison for carrying out a protest not against the laws but against one of the most corrupt Governments which has ever existed in Western Europe. I believe that he acted with great courage, and I believe the Government could afford to be magnanimous and to release him to look after the interests of his constituency.
The position has changed. The 1920 Act is no longer the instrument by which to govern Northern Ireland. The world is changing, and there are many well-intentioned people, including hon. Members on the other side of the House, who have come to the full realisation of the fact that the position in Northern Ireland cannot be maintained as it is. We have seen the tragedy which occurred in Korea and we see the tragedy now in Vietnam. Ireland, too, is a small country, and Ireland must live in amity and concord with the people of this island. Many Irishmen have given their lives to ensure that democracy should prevail in this part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the new Conservative Government will realise that some positive action should be taken in Northern Ireland immediately to ensure that a firm programme of social justice and reform is implemented in Northern Ireland, and that the Government will realise that the Irish people must be given the opportunity to govern their own island.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North): The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) says that the world moves on, but I could not help feeling, listening to his speech, that it is a speech I have heard him make so many times before. I do not wish to raise the temperature, but he showed a very negative attitude and, listening to him, one feels very much indeed a sense of despair. I would say this. I do not want to dwell on thoughts of the past, but just to say this in relation to him. He has an opportunity now, as the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, in this tragic situation in which we find ourselves in Northern Ireland, to act like a


statesman, and I hope he will not throw that opportunity away.
There is not very much point in going over the emotions which the hon. Member stirred this evening, and I want to make a very brief speech. I represent the constituency of Belfast, North which includes the Shankill Road, the Crumlin Road and the Ardoyne, areas which have had more than their fair share of trouble. How striking it is that in the election before last, when I was opposed by a militant I.R.A. Republican, and the television sets have lately been filled with the activities of militant I.R.A. Republicans, when there was the secret ballot -how many votes did he get? Out of 72,000 votes of that electorate he got 2,400. I think this puts very much into perspective the tragedy in our community today. In the secret ballot box the gunman does not win. Where there is mob rule in certain areas, that is a very different situation.
In our debate in June, a debate which followed a tragic weekend when constituents of mine were killed by gunfire across the Crumlin Road, I made a brief speech in which I recounted to the House those events, and I said then, and I say again tonight, that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to peace, and it is in their interests, whether Protestant or Catholic, to have peace, but it is not in the interests of the gunmen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), whom I congratulate on his maiden speech, referred to the activities of the I.R.A. The extent that the members of the I.R.A. have engaged in a reign of terror in parts of Belfast is very considerable. I am not arguing here today that the I.R.A. is the sole cause of all our problems or that the removal of the I.R.A. will dispose of all our problems, but I am arguing that in the very severe security situation with which we are faced now this must be number one priority both here and in Stormont. We have seen the I.R.A. reign of terror, and I do not care whether they be Provisionals or Traditionals or what you will, but their reign of terror, the shooting, the executions, the tarring and feathering, the protection rackets, no civilised society can stand much longer.
One example was given me by an employer last weekend, who said that, on

the occasion of the I.R.A. funerals the previous week, some of his employees wanted time off to attend them. He said "But I know you: you are all decent Catholics. You will not be associated with a body like the I.R.A." They said that they had no alternative, that they had to go, that this had been made clear to them by the roughnecks. The areas to which I am referring—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton): There are roughnecks on the other side as well, unfortunately.

Mr. Mills: I am making a single point in a brief speech. The areas to which I am referring are the Bogside, the Falls, the New Lodge Road, Ballymurphy, the Ardoyne—the areas where this reign of terror is most intense and where the security responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Government, in that the Army plays the dominant security rôle.
One must ask what is the aim of the I.R.A. in those areas. It has three aims. The first is to raise the Protestant areas in flame and to get them sucked into a civil war type situation. I have on many platforms tried my best to warn people of that real danger, and have said. "Leave it to the security authorities."
Their second aim is to create solidarity among the broad section of the Catholic population who have not been involved in these disturbances. Their third—this particularly comes home to this House—is to sicken the House, Whitehall and British public opinion, so that they throw up their hands in despair and say, "What can we do? We are being dragged into this mess." I ask the House to remember that those are the three aims of the I.R.A. and to say clearly that they cannot and must not win.
I want to speak in the quietest possible tones and not to raise the temperature but I must refer to the two I.R.A. funerals in Belfast last Tuesday. The tricolour flag was carried on the coffins and this is immensely provocative in many areas of Belfast. Shots were fire at the start of the funeral. Some people accompanying the coffin were wearing I.R.A. uniforms, and I believe that that was deliberately aimed not to provide so-called military honours to a comrade, but to set the city in flames by stirring up sectarian hatred. It is a matter of some


happiness, to me at least, that they failed in their object on that occasion.
I said that the people of Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics alike, were entitled to peace. This was something that I tried to put a couple of weeks ago—that things have not gone entirely satisfactorily in some of the areas for which the Army was responsible. That means no attack on the Army, it means no going back on the 1969 security division—but this is a fact.
The Economist quoted myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) a week ago as saying that we and the Stormont Government had been pressing for the Army of 7,000 to be placed under the control of the Stormont Government. In a letter published this week in the Economist—I want to repeat this here today—I make it clear that that was not our intention and that they were entirely misinformed on the point.
What my hon. Friend and I did want to do was to examine the Army's rôle inside the 1969 structure in the areas for which they have prime security responsibility. I was interested in a statement in the article in the Observer yesterday by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), with which I very much agreed:
Our troops are not trained to cope with gang warfare in dark streets or children hurling explosives …
and he went on to outline the problem. This is absolutely right. This is very much where both Governments have to some extent put on blinkers.
These are areas where the Army will be carrying out the dominant security rôle for at least some years, and it is unrealistic to imagine that this is not so. It is also equally clear that ordinary soldiers, with basic army training, coming to these areas for four months, with the best will in the world—not that I am attacking them—are not equipped to do this job—I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East goes with me on this point.
Much of the trouble is that the Army is being asked to carry out a rôle for which it is not, by its very nature, fully equipped. Of course it was right in the first months—but after 18 months, two

years, three or four years? Does that really make sense? A good deal of thought will have to be given—I am not sure whether it is being given—to some force based on the Army Military Police type of unit, walking around these areas, and after the end of the present disturbances, perhaps with not so many submachine guns in evidence, but playing that kind of rôle in those parts of the city.
I believe that it is in dealing with this problem as the first priority that the House can make its main contribution to bringing peace to the people of Northern Ireland.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone): The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Miils) referred to the particularly difficult and arduous task of the Army in Northern Ireland. This is my main reason for intervening in the debate. Affairs in Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, are an issue for all hon. Members at all times—this is generally accepted—but there is an additional responsibility for every hon. Member to direct his attention to the position of our young soldiers over there in these very difficult circumstances.
It is always easy to come away from any visit to Northern Ireland, particularly since the troubles started in 1969. with a one-sided picture. If the hon. Member will forgive me—I do not want to raise the temperature—I thought that, although there was a lot of sound sense in what he said, he did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in a firm public condemnation of extremists on his own side—[Interruption.] Not this afternoon, I mean. I know that he has said this on other occasions, but in this particularly difficult situation, it would have helped his case and been good for public opinion if he had said that as well tonight. It is essential at all times to realise that so many people wish to give one a completely one-sided case when one goes to Northern Ireland that we must always start with a firm condemnation of extremism and provocation on both sides in this tragic outbreak.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In a short speech, I did not want to go over ground already covered. I fought an election on the


matter in June and won overwhelmingly by it.

Mr. Mendelson: But in the shortest speech, I am arguing that it should be the first point that any speaker makes. If one makes it first, however short one's speech, one cannot fail to make it.
On the position of the Armed Forces, I want to put on record the positive impression that I received shortly after the outbreak of the troubles in 1969, when I went with an unofficial "commission", a group of hon. Members, to the trouble spots in Northern Ireland and talked to the local people. One of the main impressions I got at that time was that it was broadly realised that the Army was doing an essential job. This was agreed not on all sides but on most sides, and it is important to have this on the record today. For example, I met some of the civil rights leaders, for whom I had the greatest respect because I found that they were impelled not by any particular philosophical or religious prejudices but because they were anxious to bring the civil rights position in their part of the world up to date. Some of them told me that they were convinced that it was right for the Army to be there and that the Army had simply been saving lives and so on.
That was at that time. We cannot fail now but to notice, judging by what one sees on the streets of Belfast today, that there has been some change of attitude towards the Army. In earlier debates in this House some hon. Members predicted that this change of attitude would occur. In my submission, that would have been no reason for not doing what Governments of both parties in this country have done. It was essential at that time to save lives and to send the Army there. It was easy then to say that there might be a change of attitude; but if any Government acted on supposition, nothing would be done in circumstances such as these.
We must also remember that many people who were manning peace committees and who have done impressive work were of the opinion that it was essential that our soldiers should be there to do security work. Indeed, these peace committee workers frequently said that their efforts were effective only against the background of the presence of the Army.
Since that time there has been a great deterioration. Our soldiers are now having to operate in totally different circumstances—in situations which are quite unnatural to their normal duties, are different from the tasks for which they were mainly trained and are strange from their ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it would be dangerous for the Government to reach hasty decisions in this matter. I am not suggesting that there is any likelihood of the Government reaching hasty decisions. Indeed, I have no reason to think that they would do so. However, it would be wrong for a hasty decision to be reached about the need to maintain our Armed Forces there at any rate for the time being.
I could not go with the hon. Member for Belfast, North in suggesting that some special force, or perhaps the R.U.C., should now be given the task of maintaining security in these critical areas. That would be going back to a far more dangerous state of affairs than obtains even now.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I deliberately referred to a force based on the existing military police forces, expanded for work in these areas.

Mr. Mendelson: I appreciate that, but there is the implication—this has been the cause of some of the criticism on his side of the fence in Northern Ireland—that, somehow or other, it should be a force of which the section which he represents would be more convinced that it would know how to winkle people out and do a tricky job in certain streets. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the people I have in mind who have advanced this argument. Criticism of the Army has never come from only one side, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the extremists on his side of the argument have been critical of the Army. Indeed, they were the first to be so.
Her Majesty's Government must take note of the new dangers to which the Army is being exposed there. These dangers should increase, rather than reduce, the care that is shown in allowing a build-up of other paramilitary forces in Northern Ireland. For this reason I urge a statement from the Home Office today—and perhaps from the Minister responsible for the Army—giving a definite reply to the specific questions that have been asked.


When the Measure to establish the new defence regiment was passing through the House, and we were in Government, I thought, or assumed, that there was no controversy between the two Front Benches over the policy which my right hon. Friends were putting forward; namely, that there should be allowed only a slow build-up of this new defence regiment so that there would be time for people from all sections of the population to make their way into the regiment and to avoid the collective transfer of thousands of Specials directly from their previous units into the new regiment. That was the purpose and policy of Her Majesty's Government and we must now be told definitely whether this policy has been adhered to. We must also be told what the precise position is today.
I thought that it was important common ground at the time that this was a desirable policy to pursue. Anybody who is thinking in terms of reducing the burden on the Army in future—I deliberately say "in future"—must ensure that there is no continuation of the deep suspicion that here is merely an operation of the Specials in a new guise. If that suspicion were to be aroused, the dangers would be increased, especially if that were to happen at a time when one began to withdraw at any rate a part of the Army and to hand over matters to a different force.
On the political side, we must accept as a fact of life the deterioration in the position of the Army there. There have been accusations concerning searches, and criticisms of the conduct of individual soldiers. These matters are largely inherent in this sort of situation. There are bound to be individual cases of bad behaviour in a situation of occupation. People who are occupied or who regard the presence of an Army as being an Army of occupation will always complain of individual incidents and acts of misbehaviour.
By and large, real difficulty arises because this fact is inherent in the situation. I am certain that since the debates of 1969 the Army has been doing an extremely good job and that the work that our soldiers have been doing could not have been done better by any other armed forces. Because more people—certainly more than in 1968—are criticial

of the way in which the Army is doing its job, the political situation is brought into the centre of the picture.
The time has now come when Her Majesty's Government must have serious discussion about the situation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I appreciate that this is an issue which must always be approached with the greatest possible care. Morover, I have always held—I have said this on many occasions, as I did at Question Time earlier—that one of the most positive factors to arise when the troubles first started in 1969 was the fact that there was constant and reasonable contact between the Governments in London and Dublin. The time has not yet come for the relevant documents to be published, but when that time arrives I think it will be shown that that contact played an important part in keeping the situation reasonably sane.
I urge the Government now to go a step further. On returning from Belfast at the time of the 1969 debates I said that I had been assured by many people there, and particularly by the civil rights people, that the frontier was not the issue. On occasions I have been severely attacked at meetings for expressing that view, but I still adhere to it. Indeed, the policy of my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary contained that view. The issue was civil rights and it included the whole question of doing away with discrimination, the provision of job opportunities and the rest.
On the political front, the Government must hold absolutely fast to all the reforms which were initiated when we were in office. Any suspicion that they are being weakened or that there is a wavering in the desire to implement them—there is evidence to show that progress with some of these reforms is not proceeding half as fast as desirable—would be highly dangerous.
We must not be frightened by the extremists on the Protestant side. We have a grave responsibility for the wives and duties of our soldiers. They have no choice. They have been directed to go there as soldiers. The time has come for there to be serious discussions between the Government in London and the Republic of Ireland about possible approaches that might lead to joint initiatives which might help in the present


situation. Accusations that they are beginning to sell the pass, that they intend to change the Constitution, and all the rest of the accusations that are bound to be made must not frighten the Government. The Government will have the support of the many of us who have always known how delicate the matter is; and that the issue of civil rights is not the only issue. They must realise that more and closer contact with the Government in Dublin is necessary.
Let no one amongst those who are now the extremists on the other side of the argument, whether they be special parts of the I.R.A. or any other specially organised body misunderstand the fact that none of us who have sympathy for the civil rights movement, for the movement against discrimination and for the movement against what was at the time a police state imposed by Stormont, can in any way ever extend that sympathy to those extremists. Let them be quite clear that we regard them as nothing but murderers when they go about the streets attacking young soldiers who have no particular individual conflict with them.
It is important that that should be made clear. It is important to make clear that the attitude of many of us to the civil rights movement is quite different from our attitude to those people, so the Government need not be worried on that score. If the Government took the initiative that I suggest they would get many supporters, and they must not be frightened that attacks on them by their extremist opponents on the Protestant side will leave them in an indefensible position.
I have tried briefly to indicate certain lines of action that could be adopted now in this serious situation. I have deliberately not concentrated too much on detail, because to do so would not help —something must be left to the Government's judgment—but I believe that the general lines I have indicated will find widespread support throughout the United Kingdom.

5.42 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will find in the course of what I have to say that though we may have points of disagreement we also have common ground between us. Lest he should chide me

for an omission, let me say quite clearly that all of us will echo his words when he said that whatever sympathy we may have for one side or the other in the argument, all of us jointly utterly condemn any attempts to bring about any solution by force or by violence, or by provocation to force or violence.
I join with others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) on a notable maiden speech, and also on his luck in the Ballot which has allowed us to have this debate at this time. I hope that our discussion will follow the tone set by him and by the hon. Member for Penistone, and that we shall seek a calm appraisal of the present situation with the sincere desire of assisting those who are responsible for finding sensible short-term and long-term solutions. I may say with, perhaps, sorrow to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that we do understand the position, that we do have sympathy with it, but that he should not allow that to lead him into what I might call verbal street fighting. I shall seek to deal as I go along with the points of substance that he made.
Some of us who put our names in the Ballot suggested as a subject the current situation in Northern Ireland, but the Chair quite rightly ruled that subject should be narrowed to the responsibilities of the Home Secretary in regard to Northern Ireland. That brings us immediately to what I would call the underlying point of the entire debate: where does Ministerial responsibility in all this Northern Ireland situation reside? The hon. Member for Belfast, West knows as well as any of us that where anything at all goes wrong in any situation someone asks: whose fault is it? Who is the Minister responsible? Which Government are to be blamed and which to be applauded?
A good deal of the anxiety and confusion in the public mind in Ulster results from this lack of definition of Ministerial responsibility. Up to the deployment on the streets of the garrison in support of the civil power it was the common convention of this House that matters which had, under the Act of 1920, been devolved on the Government of Northern Ireland were left to that Government, and Ministers here refused to take any responsibility for them whatever. We


now have a situation in which Ministers take responsibility for a whole range of matters governing Northern Ireland affairs, but time and time again, while taking responsibility for a Question they will quote the other Government in the Answer. For example, the Home Secretary when answering a Parliamentary Question here about policing will do so by saying that he is told by the Government of Northern Ireland that there is normal policing everywhere.
But let us now look at the security situation in respect of one actual event and one hypothetical event. The actual event is the funeral which took place on Wednesday afternoon. I am using that event only in order to examine this question of Ministerial responsibility and not with a view to arousing any feelings. The funeral was that of a man who had been shot by a soldier in the course of a previous riot or trouble of some sort.
The funeral assembled, the coffin was draped in the tricolour and was escorted by a guard which, as my hon. Friend has said, was an armed guard. The funeral proceeded not along the line of route which would normally be expected but through the Protestant area where it was most likely to cause the maximum of friction. Everyone has seen the television pictures of the funeral, and this open and calculated defiance of law, and authority, designed for provocation. What one asks, and what the citizens ask, whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholic is: "How is it, and whose responsibility is it, that the law is set at nought and open defiance permitted in our streets?". They ask the question of their representative in Parliament, but what answer is given to them? That brings one to the nub of the problem. Does one say that the fact that this open defiance of the law occurred was the fault of the General Officer Commanding?

Mr. Heller: I accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, but, to put the record straight, does he agree that such provocation—marches of this type, though perhaps not with funerals—have taken place on the other side and that therefore his analogy could be used for extremist groups?

Captain Orr: I always seek to be fair. I could well have taken some such

analogy, but there has been nothing comparable with what happened last Wednesday that I could quote from any quarter. In any case, I take it as an illustration, because it is the most recent.
Who was responsible for this act of open defiance of the law? The citizen asks for redress, and he is entitled to an answer. Was it the fault of the G.O.C.? Was it the fault of the chief constable? Was it the fault of the Ministry for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland and of the Northern Ireland Government? Does one go for inquiry and redress to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Or is it the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? In other words, are we even in order to discuss it in this debate?
This is what causes the confusion in the public mind and where the whole trouble lies. The five authorities I have mentioned appear to be responsible for the direction of the maintenance of the authority of the established Government. It is impossible to satisfy public opinion unless there is a clearer definition of who is responsible for what.
An attempt was made at a division of responsibility when my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence saw the members of the Northern Ireland Cabinet. A communiqué was then issued which stated, amongst other things, that the Ministers
noted that because of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland the commitment of the Army in aid of the civil power necessarily involved a division of responsibility … This division of responsibility makes it essential not only that the two Governments should act, as they do, in concert but that there should be at every level the most effective liaison.
This one accepts.
… At the level of operational command within Northern Ireland they were fully satisfied that the machinery of the Joint Security Committee over which the Prime Minister as Minister of Home Affairs presides is an effective instrument for its purpose.
Is the Joint Security Committee an effective instrument for its purpose? Do the events of last week and the situation on the ground suggest that it is an effective instrument? Let us suppose that the Committee meets and comes to a conclusion about a proposal. Let us assume that it decides that a large area


must be searched with all the disruption and the provocation—if you like—that that may cause. The Committee will come to a decision. It is presided over by the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, who happens to be the Prime Minister at the same time. A decision on policy is made. Who is the Minister responsible for the decision on policy? Is this a matter which I advise my constituents to take up with their Members in the Parliament of Northern Ireland? Or is it something which I myself must take up—with what Minister—here? Is it with the Secretary of State for Defence? Or is it with the Home Secretary?
The purpose of all this is to try to define where the ministerial responsibility is, because it must finally reside somewhere. To continue in the present state of confusion will cause the continuance of anxieties and fears and encourage a general feeling that everybody is passing the buck to everybody else. It may suit Ministers both here and at Stormont, it may even suit Opposition Leaders, to leave the question opaque.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East): The hon. and gallant Gentleman can leave me out of it.

Captain Orr: I am delighted to hear that.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a reasonable point. Before he leaves this illustration, will he tell us what he suggests should be referred to the Joint Security Committee? Was it the route of the funeral march? Was it the draping of the tricolour over the coffin? Was it the carrying of firearms? Or was it the use of firearms? He should be more specific.

Captain Orr: I will be more specific, but I was using the incident as an illustration. If the funeral had followed the route recommended by the police, a considerable amount of trouble could have been avoided. It is a miracle that there was not an explosion. It says a tremendous amount for the forbearance and everything else of the Protestant community that night that there was not the most appalling riot as a result of this.
My point is not to conduct an inquest into that event. Whatever one may think

should have been done about the incident I am concerned to ask: who is the Minister responsible? The House should address itself very carefully and cogently to this question.
I come now to my hypothetical incident. What happens on the ground if it is believed that in a farmhouse or in a house in a street there is a cache of arms or that the farmhouse or house is being used for subversive activity? Presumably the information will come from the special branch in the Ulster Police. The information is presumably sent to the chief constable. He then, presumably, says to the Army, "I want this investigated", or "I want this house"—or "farmhouse"—" searched".
What happens on the ground? Is it done by the police? Do the police say that they will search and that they will ask for Army support? Is the Army support automatically forthcoming or is there a long procedure whereby the matter is referred to the G.O.C.? If the nature of the proposed operation is one that the G.O.C. thinks should be referred back to London, is it referred back to the Ministry of Defence? Or does it go through the Home Office? It is a question to ask, and people who are deeply concerned about the security situation must ask themselves what exactly are these channels and where they can put their finger upon Ministerial responsibility. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seek to define a little more carefully the area of responsibility.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North): Before my hon. and gallant Friend leaves that point, could he give us some guidance as to where he feels the responsibility should lie?

Captain Orr: That is a fair question, but it is one which I shall not answer because I think it is for the Government to decide which is the most effective place for Ministerial responsibility to lie. It is perfectly plain that Ministerial responsibility for the Army, when the Army is performing its customary r—le of the defence of the United Kingdom, must lie with the Ministry of Defence. That is obvious. The protection of the Northern Ireland frontier, which is a frontier of the United Kingdom, and prevention of internal subversion, I have no doubt, is a


proper matter for the Ministry of Defence when the Army is used for that purpose.
The peculiarity of the situation is that the Army is deployed in support of the civil power, and we have the anomaly that the civil power happens to be the only subordinate Government within the United Kingdom. This is an anomalous situation. It is difficult. It strengthens the argument of some people who suggest that one would be better without the local Parliament, but I am not going into that kind of constitutional argument at present. All that I am saying is that the Ministerial responsibility for law and order upon which the safety and security of humble homes depends ought to be more clearly defined.
Let me come to one other area on which I think there ought to be some discussion as to where Ministerial responsibility lies. One hon. Member spoke about the Irish Republic. What happens in the Irish Republic is of immense importance in this situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is the Minister responsible for dealing with the Irish Republic. But my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department are responsible for the security of Northern Ireland. To what extent are they involved in dealings with the Irish Republic? To what extent, for example, is there any co-ordination of intelligence in the present situation?
It is a truism that the Irish Republic, willingly or not, possibly unwillingly so far as the present Irish Republican Government are concerned—the territory of what is supposed to be a friendly State—is used for the purpose of allowing the enemies of the United Kingdom, the enemies of authority within the United Kingdom, to group, to train, to arm and to escape if necessary. I do not think this is disputed on any side.
What troubles me is how the present Irish Government, whose good intentions one would accept, can be sustained or helped to see that their writ does run, which in fact it is perfectly plain throughout large areas of the Irish Republic it does not. This gives us very grave concern. What I want to know is whether or not my right hon. Friend the Home Secre-

tary feels that in so far as intelligence and that kind of thing is concerned he has any responsibility for the matter.
I was going to deal with one other small point of Ministerial responsibility, but perhaps I have laboured it enough. The great problem—and this is why my hon. Friends and I have so far concentrated our discussion upon the security situation—is to explain to all decent people in Ulster—Protestant and Roman Catholic alike—how it is that with, I think, 14 battalions of the Army behind the civil power we cannot yet achieve order in our streets. There are immense difficulties. I join with hon. Members in saying that no Army could possibly have done as well as our Army has done in the present situation. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, that in a four months tour of duty the Army are doing a job which they were never trained to do and which is an extraordinarily difficult one, and that we owe them all so much. But still, with all the difficulties, it is almost impossible to explain to public opinion why this situation must continue.
The hon. Member for Penistone— I come directly to something which he said —was arguing that there should be a new political initiative of some kind. He envisaged tripartite talks or something of that sort between the three Governments. I recognise the sincerity behind what he said, but I could not think of anything not only more futile but more dangerous in the present situation. What would such a conference, if it were called, set out to achieve?

Mr. John Mendelson: I never said anything about a conference. I said there should be a new political approach. It does not have to be a formal conference in the first place. Apart from that, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted me correctly.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think he suggested in a more delicate form what so many other people, particularly in the Press, are now suggesting, that there should be some kind of tripartite talks, whether formal or not.
Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman where this would be so dangerous. As soon as one promotes an idea that there


might be, through inter-governmental talks, some new kind of political initiative, everybody, whatever his stance or attitude in these matters, looks for something to come out of the new political initiative. What is it? The member of the minority, if he is nationalist in outlook in Northern Ireland, looks immediately for some change in the present constitution of Northern Ireland, whatever it might be. The Unionist, on the other hand, looks for a great strengthening, in some way or another, of the attitude of the Southern Irish Government to bring terrorism to an end.
What conceivable changes could be made as a result of such talks? They could not recommend—the hon. Gentleman will go with me here—any change in the frontier. No derogation from the boundary of the United Kingdom could be recommended. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will agree there, for he himself said that the frontier was not in dispute. There could be no change in that.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not misquote me as saying that the frontier is not in dispute, for obviously it is. What I said was that I came back from Northern Ireland with the firm impression that the frontier was not the issue in 1968. Civil rights and an end to discrimination was the issue. That is all I said.

Captain Orr: Very well. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that, perhaps, tripartite discussions might produce, or at least leave open the option to suggest, a change in the frontier, what effect does he imagine that would have upon the opinion of the majority in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going too far the other way. I carefully thought out the way in which I put the point. What he is now putting into my mouth is not what I said. I said that I regarded the situation as urgent enough for a new approach to discussions. There are all sorts of things on which the Governments could co-operate. It does not have to be a discussion which starts talking about the frontier. That is what I suggested, and I added that, if the Government were to take that matter up, they would immediately be attacked by the hon. and gallant

Gentleman and his hon. Friends in the way he is now doing, and I urged them not to be frightened by that.

Captain Off: Very well. If such talks are not to deal with the frontier, what are they to deal with? This is the point. What possible political initiative could come out of it? The reform programme is on the Stormont statute book. I pray in aid the Guardian, which no one will suggest has been friendly to my party. On 8th February this year, the Guardian said:
The struggle in Ulster has long ceased to be about civil rights. For some rioters a deep hatred of Northern Ireland's British connection may seem cause enough. Constant rioting, they believe, is the best way to bring about constitutional change against the will of the majority. They must be shown this is not a real option.
In other words, the Guardian makes there the correct analysis, namely, that any constitutional change, any suggestion of constitutional change, or any suggestion of change at all, is in this situation totally counter-productive. It cannot help the Army in the difficult job which it has to do.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the whole idea of new political initiatives is not only not productive but wholly dangerous and non-productive. The less we hear of it, the better.
Much more important is the economic situation in Northern Ireland. At this moment—I shall not deploy the point at length because some of my hon. Friends wish to deal with it— unemployment runs at 7·9 per cent. It is not as high as it has been, for I remember unemployment of 9 and 10 per cent., but it is past the 40.,000 mark, and that we regard as dangerous in Ulster.
Clearly, there is a task to be done. But, whatever the financial incentives which my right hon. Friend may produce, whatever the financial incentives produced by the Northern Ireland Government, it cannot be done against a background of civil strife such as we have seen.
I am hopeful. I do not share so much of the despondency which is widely felt. I believe that the solution is, first, an end to talk about political initiatives. I believe that, with proper intelligence, with a proper determination and with a proper co-ordination of effort, the


security forces will be able ultimately to lay by the heels the people who are causing the trouble. Those who are causing the trouble are not the ordinary rank-and-file Protestant or Roman Catholic on either side. Those who are causing the trouble are dangerous, evil people, whom the hon. Gentleman rightly condemns. They have to be stopped. As the Guardian said, the point now is that the Army must win.
We all deeply sympathise with the widow of Gunner Curtis, as we did with the widows of the policemen in Ulster who also lost their lives in what is the same battle. It is my hope that we can give some answer to Gunner Curtis's widow, that we can tell her that her loss was not in vain. I do not believe that it was in vain, for what our Army is doing, with our pride and our support, is to maintain the authority of democracy in a British city. If we fail in one British city, we shall fail in others. That is why Gunner Curtis did not die in vain.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): First, I take up the analysis presented by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) of where Ministerial responsibility lies, the question whether it lies in this House, in the Security Committee and the Stormont Cabinet, or with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
I remember how the situation arose, and I remember the start of the recent spate of troubles. There was on our side of the House at that time a great demand that the sole authority for security matters should rest here, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), then Home Secretary. It was put to us—we accepted it with reluctance—that if that were done the situation of the Stormont Government would become intolerable. So this unhappy dual relationship developed, unhappy in the sense that we are not always certain to whom, or about whom, we may ask Questions.
What is clear is that the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks, as I saw it, is that the responsibility must go either to his right hon. Friend here or solely to the Northern Ireland Security Committee and the Stormont Government.

That latter we are not prepared to accept, because it would create again the situation which led to the recommendations of the Hunt Committee and to the situation in which it was felt by a minority, though a large minority, in a part of the United Kingdom that they could not have a fair hearing and that they could not be treated equitably. It was the desire to achieve that end which led to the arrangement which was made.
That must be maintained, because nothing would cause more consternation than to have it felt that the British Army was acting not on the recommendations or advice, or with the consultation of, the Stormont Parliament but under its direction. It would then seem to be losing its great strength in the present situation, no matter how difficult it is, which is that it is an impartial enforcer of law and order.
It is being subjected to tremendous strains and accusations, first by one side and then by another. We could have had a similar debate six or nine months ago when other people would have been making accusations about the British Army like those being made now. If it lost its reputation of being an impartial umpire, the situation would be very black, and it would lose that reputation in the eyes of the minority if it were felt to be directly under the control of the Stormont Government. Hon. Members might regret my saying that. They might regret the whole idea, and I regret it. I regret that that should be thought of a subordinate Parliament in the United Kingdom, but that is the situation. That is why we must keep control here.

Captain Orr: I was shaking my head just now, but not at what the hon. Gentleman said about the Stormont Government. I would have expected him to say it, and it would have been out of character if he had not. What I was shaking my head about was his statement that the Army is an umpire. When the Army is deployed in support of the civil power it is not umpire but an executive arm designed to carry out the law impartially.

Mr. McNamara: When the British Army went into Belfast, as when it went into Derry, it went in as an umpire to separate two warring factions, where the civil power had completely lost control


of the situation, and the situation was far more dangerous than it is today. It went in to enforce law and order impartially between both sides, where it had patently broken down on both sides. That is why it went in, and that is the job it is doing. I should be very critical if I felt that it was being used in a partial way merely to act as a buttress to a particular political regime, no matter what was its colour. That is not the Army's role when it goes in to support the civil authorities.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman poured scorn on the possibility of tripartite discussions between the Government in Dublin, Her Majesty's Government and the Stormont Parliament, and he suggested all sorts of fears. He said that if any talks developed they would mean to the nationalists immediately some sort of constitutional change and if they did not get it they would be disappointed. To the unionists they would mean fear of a constitutional change, and perhaps if there were not stern measures against terrorists in the South they would immediately be disappointed, and from the disappointment would emerge more despair. I think that that is a fair summary of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument.

Captain Orr: Very good.

Mr. McNamara: On that sort of argument, we shall never advance out of the present slough of despond, because we shall always be afraid of upsetting first one person and then the other. We are in exactly the same situation with the extremists on both sides.
I well remember the attitudes of certain people when Captain Terence O'Neill met Sean Lemass. They had their two meetings and suddenly there burgeoned up hopes of an improvement in the situation. The improvements took place. Captain O'Neill engendered hopes with his policies of progress towards various reforms which he set in train. I criticised them because they were not fast enough, but there was an amelioration of the situation. But for a variety of reasons, including Burntollet, the reactionary attitudes of various members of the then Stormont Government, a harsh infliction of the law, and all sorts of blowings up of feelings, the clock was set back. But

there was an important step forward by Captain O'Neill and Sean Lemass.
In my view, we can reach that kind of situation again. Neither side gained on the issues which it regarded as important. The two sides said, rather like employers and trade unions negotiating, "There will be things that we disagree on, but there is an area of interest," just as the trade unionist tells the employer, "You want your goods produced, and I want my wages." It is in that area of interest that a start can be made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there can be no political initiative, that there is no political solution, and started to talk about economics, but I believe that part of the solution lies with discussions of the kind I have described.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman gave negotiations between employers and trade unions as an example. He knows about not negotiating under duress.

Mr. McNamara: Neither Captain O'Neill nor Mr. Sean Lemass was negotiating under duress.

Captain Orr: I am talking about today.

Mr. McNamara: There are occasions when someone negotiates under duress. If Major Chichester-Clark and Mr. Lynch were negotiating today, they would both be under duress. I do not deny that they would be looking over their shoulders. But a start must be made somewhere. We cannot continue to be afraid all the time of people on either side.
It is in the economic sphere that the opportunity for negotiating arises. There is an enormous community of interest between people on both sides of the Border in terms of communications, industrial development and power development, which neither side can afford separately but which they can together afford. There is a unity of interest there, and something could be done. The problems west of the Bann in Northern Ireland are very similar to those in Gael Tacht in the west of Southern Ireland. A joint approach is needed, and it could be achieved. Communications immediately spring to mind. The troubles have affected the tourist industry on both sides of the Border in the past two years. Here is another area where there could be more joint action and help.

Captain Orr: There is obviously a great deal of good sense about what the hon. Gentleman says about economic co-operation. We all want to see this, but it is not what all the ballyhoo is about. When there is talk about political initiatives, this is not what people are talking about. I am certain that it is not what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was talking about.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will say what "political initiative" means to him, and I will say what it means to me. What it means to me is initially people saying, "At least there is an area where we have a common interest. Let us work from there. "This is tremendously important. This is the second point where I disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because there is a need for such discussion.
However, perhaps I may now turn to my own speech.
There is a general feeling that some of the searches which are being made for arms are being made on misleading information. The noble Lord gave his figures, and I do not dispute them, but a well-known device to cause trouble and chaos is to give false information knowing that the situation will arise in which people become angry and women start beating their dustbin lids. I therefore ask that we should be certain that the information which is given at any one time is proper information. That will always be a chancey business, but this has got to be seen.
I want next to raise the question of the rifle clubs. One of the attitudes of the minority is that when the trouble broke out and there were the riots and the burnings, one of the things which happened was that they had no arms with which to repel the incursions that were made into their ghettos. No matter whether that is right or wrong, that is how people think and what they say. It therefore seems to them reasonable to try to get for themselves arms and ammunition if they are to defend themselves in the future.
Again, I deplore the attitude that anybody should think like that in the United Kingdom, but that is the way the people think, all the more so because they see an extension of the number of rifles which are held officially and under licence in

rifle clubs. It was, I think, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East who wrote in this Sunday's Observer that irrespective of whether the rifle is legal, it is still lethal. When organisations like the Ulster Special Constabulary Old Comrades Association Rifle Club are being formed, one can understand the fears of the people. We want not only searches in certain areas for arms, but the taking-in of far more arms which are now lying around—over 70,000—and putting them, if necessary, into centralised armouries. Whenever the lads want to go out and have their rifle practice, they should produce a licence, draw out their rifles, say how many shots they are taking and come back and account for them.
There is a positive fear on the part of the minority that the number of arms is being increased legally and under licence. I know that statements have been made at the weekend that more careful thought will be given to this and the position will be looked at, but we not only want it to be looked at. There should be a curtailment, a gathering-in, the establishment of centralised armouries and proper control, so that it seems that the Government are acting impartially between one side and the other. This is important.
Having spoken about political initiatives between the three Governments, I think that there is still need for a lot of political initiative from the Stormont Government. I hope that the Home Secretary will say this to the Northern Ireland Prime Minister. It is legitimate and fair to say that many of the reforms, some of which were initiated by Captain O'Neill, all of which were accelerated and a great many of which were introduced as a result of the promptings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, have gone through. Unfortunately, however, to the majority of people they appear to exist merely on paper.
We can all think of examples of constitutions which have been perfect in form and content but which, in practice, have been completely the reverse. That is a feeling that exists. We want, therefore, to see not only the reforms implemented, but a more positive approach to the reforms and a more positive dealing with the problems. I realise that that is difficult to ensure once they are on paper and have been enacted, but, somehow,


we must have a positive approach from the Stormont Government that this is happening.
In this relationship, we also must have a more positive relationship between the S.D.L.P. and the Unionist Government. I do not suggest that there should be a sudden conversion on both sides, but one of the major criticisms which was made of Northern Ireland was that all the opposition parties were fragmented; they were little boys with their own native groups of support in their own area and they were nominally nationalist or this, that or the other.
They have now built up, despite many diverse personalities, a strong, effective organisation in Stormont, working to-gether in a manner which has not been seen before in the history of the State. This is surely something which must be encouraged by the Stormont Government for the benefit of healthy politics in that country.
Therefore, the S.D.L.P. must be brought more and more into the confidence of the Stormont Government, in exactly the same way as an Opposition is brought within the confidence of Her Majesty's Government in this country—no more, no less.

Captain Orr: That might not meet with the approval of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is trying to start a new party based on the Northern Ireland Labour Party.

Mr. McNamara: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should read what my right hon. Friend said before he accuses him of forming new parties. That would, perhaps, help. Whatever other differences I have with my right hon. Friend—and they are not many—I would not accuse him of starting a new party. For a start, his own position on the National Executive would then become intolerable.
My final point is the question of proportional representation. The Home Secretary will recall that I raised this with him at almost his first Question Time as Home Secretary. It is important to have a way of avoiding the problems of extremism where one can get away from constituencies where one person is outbidding another in the degree to which he is an Orangeman, a Nationalist, a Unionist, N.I.L.P., S.D.L.P., or anything

else. We could have a situation in which the bulk of people in a constituency, by the exercise of preferences, could plug for a moderate position.
Normally, I would not plead for proportional representation, but in a situation such as exists in Northern Ireland, in which there is a bitter difference between the parties which exists on religious, almost racial, grounds, there is a way of trying to overcome it by getting into the middle course. I think that this could be done on multi-Member constituencies elected on a proportional representation basis.
That would be an opportunity for the silent majority, to whom Captain O'Neill called in vain, to the moderates on both sides, who, not sinking their differences, not denying their history and heritage, of which each side is legitimately proud, could see a situation in which they could vote and apportion their votes in such a way as to get into the Stormont Parliament a group of people who were not continuously looking over their shoulders to preserve their own political position.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member said that he wanted to see a more positive approach to the reforms. He must tell us what he means by that, otherwise it will sound very much like political nit-picking. Will he tell us exactly what he means and give examples? The most positive step which he could take this afternoon would be to make clear that the reforms are through, that they exist and that there is no excuse now, if ever there were, for the kind of violence that we are seeing.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman wants an example. I will give him a few. First, I would like a positive undertaking that the Ulster Defence Regiment will not suddenly be swamped out of all proportion with recruits so as no longer to reflect the balance in the community, which was an undertaking given when the Bill was introduced—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That has nothing to do with Stormont.

Mr. McNamara: Granted, but the hon. Gentleman is asking me for examples. There is one. My second concerns the housing authority. I want to see it pushed forward positively. It took nearly


three years to get it off the ground. I want to see it working. I want to see powers taken from local authorities and concentrated on the housing authority. Then I want to see on such bodies as the housing authority and the police authority a far better representation of the minority groups. In that connection, people appointed to represent minorities should no longer be termed, as they were in the old days, "Castle Catholics". I would like to see schemes for local government reform pushed forward quicker—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is not the answer.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman wants to know how reforms should be positively implemented. They exist on paper. I want to see them pushed ahead. I want to see elections on the basis of one man, one vote. A whole lot of reforms exist on paper. We want to see them forced through. We fear that people like the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) will think that people will be content with reforms put down on paper, and that they will transform the situation. They will not. A degree of political initiative must come from the Unionists in Northern Ireland, because they are the people in power.

6.41 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North): I think that I speak for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on both sides of the House when I say that we meet under the dark shadow of tragedy. I want to preface my remarks by recording the sympathy of the people whom I represent with those who have suffered in the recent outbreak of violence in the City of Belfast. Those of us who have had the unpleasant task of taking back information to the families whose loved ones will never return feel deeply about these matters, and I am sure that I express the concern and sympathy of all hon. Members for those innocent victims who have been gunned down in our city.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) on his maiden speech. As he represents a very large constituency in the county of Antrim, part of which I represent, I want also to congratulate him on his contribution.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), with whom I have often crossed swords in another place, has made a number of complaints about the treatment meted out by the Northern Ireland Government to certain sections of the community. They are complaints which are rife on this side of the water. However, it is clear that, on investigation, many statements which have been made about discrimination have not proved to be true.
In that connection, let me refer the House to the Report of the Commissioner of Complaints in Northern Ireland, the appointment of whom was one of the reform measures about which we have heard today. That report covers the period from 22nd December, 1969, to 16th October, 1970, and the Commissioner records that 970 complaints were sent to him for investigation. I remind hon. Members that the Commissioner is not the Ombudsman. He does not deal with complaints involving parliamentary matters but with those concerned with local government, and there is no doubt that more criticism about discrimination has been levelled at local government than anywhere else. It is on local government that much of the opposition and criticism has been based.
The Commissioner of Complaints received 970 complaints, and he records in his report:
307 of these were not in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, which left a total of 663 to be investigated. But of these 970, only 74 alleged discrimination on religious grounds.
I think that hon. Members should take note of those figures.
There are Protestant people in the North of Ireland who feel that they have been discriminated against. The complaints are not confined to Roman Catholics. A recent case in Dungannon was taken to the High Court. It concerned a Protestant man who felt that he had been discriminated against by a local authority.
Of the 74 complaints out of a total of 970, 21 were not in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner at all. That left him with 53 to investigate fully. Of those 53 cases, 10 have now been investigated, and the Commissioner has found that there was no basis for the charge that there had been religious discrimination.


We need to get these accusations of religious discrimination into their proper perspective. In spite of all the charges and counter-charges, the person appointed to deal specifically with this bone of contention in our community has discovered that there is nothing like as much discrimination as was thought when his Department was set up.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West also spoke of the housing conditions of the Roman Catholic people. However, I am sure that the former Home Secretary will agree that, when he was in the City of Belfast, he saw Protestant communities living in very poor housing. One hon. Member on the benches opposite spoke of Captain Terence O'Neill. It so happens that his constituency is included in the constituency of Antrim, North which I have the honour to represent in this House and which, indeed, I also represent in another place. Captain O'Neill lived near to the village of Ahoghill where there are 90 houses which are condemned as being unfit for human habitation and, in all, a total of 200 which are very near to that state. I am surprised that some hon. Members look upon the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland as an apostle of progress. Certainly there was no progress in his own constituency.
In my maiden speech in this House, I made a promise to represent both sections of my community. A member of the hon. Gentleman's Social Democratic Labour Party in another place has acknowledged that in constituency work I represent thoroughly all sections of the community. I intend to carry on that programme, regardless of criticisms which may be levelled against me. It is important that all hon. Members know some of the facts of the situation in our city and in our land.
I do not believe that the root cause of the trouble in Northern Ireland is social. I do not believe that it is because of housing that these riots have taken place. The Ballymurphy estate is a post-war estate and the people there were given good houses, and yet we have had some of the worst rioting on the Ballymurphy estate, as on the New Barnsley estate, which is also an estate of new houses with proper amenities and the other things necessary to good housing. It is not true that there will be rioting only in areas

of poor housing, because we have had serious rioting in areas of post-war housing.
I do not believe that the root cause of the trouble is unemployment, although I concede that if a person is unemployed, he is at a loose end, and there is nothing more demoralising for a man than to be unemployed. I believe, too, that the Stormont Government have never regarded it as their duty to seek full employment for the people of Northern Ireland. That is a view which I have pushed in another place. In this day in the twentieth century, it is the duty of a Government to seek employment for their people. But I do not believe that unemployment is the root cause. When at night I look over the court cases which are reported, I find that most of the people taking part in the riots are employed. That is a fact which cannot be refuted.
The real cause of the trouble in Northern Ireland is the great divide between the religious communities. Because of history, the Roman Catholic people think that their future and their welfare is in an all-Ireland Republic, joining a republic which at the moment has written into its constitution a special place for the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant people of Northern Ireland—not all of them, let it be said, because there are a few who are not and do not call themselves Unionists—feel that their future is with Great Britain and the Union. Consequently, there is a great divide which is built primarily upon the religious affiliations of the members of each denomination.
It is not true that Roman Catholic and Protestant neighbours are sharpening their knives and preparing to gun one another down. Large sections of the community, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, are living in perfect peace. I can point to my own constituency, and anyone who knows the geography of North Antrim knows that the north end, the Glens of Antrim, is strongly nationalistic and strongly republican orientated, and yet in that area, where there is a strong Protestant majority, people live in peace and harmony together. I do not believe that a person must sacrifice his religious principles in order to live as a neighbour with someone who has directly the


opposite attitude. I believe that Protestants and Roman Catholics can live together.
However, there is a duty inherent on the Northern Ireland Government—and I emphasise that—to see that justice is done and is seen to be done. There are many Protestant people who do not think that they have had justice done to them, and there are Roman Catholic people who do not think that they have had justice done to them. Until the Northern Ireland Government can establish the right of a man not to be prosecuted because of his religious or political affiliations, but solely on the ground of being a law breaker, there cannot be any real peace in Northern Ireland. That is the basis for any democratic society.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). Those who feel as I feel believe that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone got his just deserts, just as when I was imprisoned twice the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, "Paisley deserves it; keep him in as long as you can". Let it be made perfectly clear that this was not the first charge brought against the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He had already had a suspended sentence and the magistrate in this case had no option but to send him to prison. Whether a man is a Member of Parliament, a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, if he breaks the law, he deserves to suffer the full rigours of the law.
But there are those who believe that because of the present situation, what has been termed in Northern Ireland "No Go Areas", a section of the community completely escapes the rigours of the law, and it is important that these things are noted in the debate. It is the foundation of a settlement in Northern Ireland that justice is done and is seen to be done. Until that is established in the land, there can be no firm basis for that lasting peace which every right hon. and hon. Gentleman wants to see.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that the slogan of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South was that this was a fight with the I.R.A. I remind the House that the General Officer Com-

manding the troops in Northern Ireland, not my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, was the first man to make that statement. He is the man on the ground, the army chief who knows more about the situation than any hon. Member. It was he who said that this was a fight with the Irish Republican Army. There is no doubt that such a fight is in progress.
It should also be said that the Cameron Report casts strictures upon and condemned the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I do not hold any brief for the Cameron Report, because I think that it should have been the result of a public inquiry based on sworn statements, but no oaths were taken, there was no room for cross-examination, the witnesses could make statements without there being any possibility of those statements being refuted. That sort of inquiry is useless in this situation. I approved the Scarman Tribunal which was a public tribunal at which sworn evidence was given, where oaths were taken and where witnesses were subject to cross-examination. I do not understand the logic of what the hon. Member for Belfast, West had to say in praise of the Cameron Report which rigorously condemned him.

Mr. Fitt: It was a passing reference.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD, he will see that he praised Lord Cameron. His words are reported in HANSARD which never lies, which always tells the truth, and which is infallible.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster—

Mr. McNamara: Kingston-upon-Hull, North.

Rev. lain Paisley: I apologise to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, whoever he is. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about co-operation between the Government of the North of Ireland and the Government of the Republic. One would have thought that there was absolutely no co-operation between the Government of the North and the Government of the South. This is not true because in the tourist industry there is the closest possible relationship—

Mr. Fitt: You never go there.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It would not be good for my health, as the hon. Member knows. If I went there he would be the very first person to condemn me, so I cannot win on that score. There is the closest possible relationship between the tourist boards on both sides of the Border. They operate joint enterprises. It is also true that there is a great electric scheme going on under which both governments will be in partnership for the supply of light if not of heat in the Northern Ireland situation. There are many other schemes. I remember when the railways of Northern Ireland were being reorganised the Northern Ireland Government negotiated with the Government of the South about the railway line from Dublin to Belfast.
It is wrong to suggest that there is no relationship at all. The people whom I represent and whose views I put to this House would not want any political deal on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Even the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that there were a million Protestants who had legitimate fears about the position which would arise if there was to be a Northern Ireland Republic. There is no doubt that there are those in the North of Ireland who are determined, come what may, to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom. Those are the people, the vast majority of people, who would feel, if there were anything that reopened talks on partition, they would feel rightly that they were being betrayed.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also mentioned the meeting between Captain Terence O'Neill and Sean Lemass. That did not take place to discuss a matter of mutual concern between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. It took place so that Captain O'Neill could say that Sean Lemass now recognises the constitution of Northern Ireland. We were told that this was the way in which the Premier of the Republic recognised our constitution. Sean Lemass, immediately he got over the Border into his own territory, made a statement in which he said, "I have visited the North of Ireland but I will never recognise the constitution of Northern Ireland". Let us be quite clear about that.
There was an uproar about that meeting. Had members of Captain O'Neill's

party been with him, it would have been a different matter but that was something he did on his own. He did not trust the members of his Cabinet because he never informed them until Sean Lemass was in Stormont. He said on that occasion that he could not trust the members of his Cabinet because they could have revealed the visit to the Press and there would have been a great protest about it.
It is wrong to say that this meeting between Sean Lemass and Captain O'Neill was the beginning of a new season, because Captain O'Neill's policy concerning Northern Ireland is entirely divorced from the policy of the vast majority of Unionists. He has recently suggested himself as a suitable candidate when De Valera dies—to be President of the Irish Republic! That sort of philosophy will not be accepted by the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland.
How will this all end? What is the solution to the problem? Those of us who live in the City of Belfast. who go about the country and take part in the political life of Northern Ireland, are aware of many things. The first is that the economic situation of Northern Ireland can no longer stand any more rioting and anarchy. It would be in the best interests of all sections of the community for this violence to cease. I should like to put it on record that I have always condemned violence, whether it comes from the so-called U.V.F. or from different divisions of the I.R.A. Violence has to be condemned and I have always unreservedly condemned it, as I do so again in this House.
No man in Northern Ireland has the right, no matter what his grievance, to take part in subversive activities, and any man who does so does not have the interests of Northern Ireland at heart. Our economic position is serious. There is the position of our great shipyard, of Short Bros., and of Rolls-Royce. More people will be declared redundant and the unemployment figure, which is already a tragedy, will swell out of all proportion. It would be in the interests of every section of the community if violence and anarchy came to a full stop in Northern Ireland.
Roman Catholice members of the community have come to me and have said that in their community they are living


in a state of terror. I had a Roman Catholic man with me the other day. He said that certain members of the Republican movement came to his home and asked him, "Why are you not out in the street? Why are you not attacking the troops, throwing stones?" He said, "I do not take part in that sort of action." That man had to leave his home and to seek shelter elsewhere. There are people today who are living in terror from the threats of the Irish Republican Army.
Let me illustrate this. Three days ago a man parked his car at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, which is adjacent to the Falls Road area represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. His car was stolen. He went to the police who said, "We cannot go into the side streets of this area. You had better go and look for your car." He looked for his car and found it. He had a duplicate key so he opened the door to drive his car off. Four men appeared at the car and asked, "What are you doing? "He said, "This is my car, it has been stolen. "They said, "If you drive that car we will burn it. You give us £20 and you can have your car again."
He went to the police station again and told the police. The police said, "In the interests of your car you would be better paying the £20 to get it back." These are facts. These things are happening in Northern Ireland. There are areas of the country which are being terrorised.
What is the answer? First it is that justice must be done and must be seen to be done. That is a firm bedrock for any democratic society. This is very important because those who have opposed the Unionist Party—I stand as such an opponent, I suppose that I am one of the most severe critics of the Unionist Party and I am looked upon as a danger to the Unionist Party—have suffered at the hands of the Establishment. But, irrespective of that, justice must be done and it must be seen to be done. The gunmen must be brought to trial, and men who parade in the uniform of the I.R.A. must be arrested and must stand trial.
I want to put on record that, strange to say, I am opposed to internment. I do not think that it is the answer to the

problem. I believe there is enough law in Northern Ireland to arrest these men and put them on trial and have them properly dealt with by the court. The very basis of British democracy is that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. I believe that these men should stand trial, and it seems that there is plenty of evidence to get a verdict against them. If the Northern Ireland Government had the power of internment they would be working on a 50-50 basis. They would say, "We will put that man away because he is a Roman Catholic, we will put that man away because he is an Orangeman. He is a Free Presbyterian, so we will remove him as quickly as possible". That is not the way to intern people. I am therefore against internment. Let these men stand trial and be condemned and be isolated from the other members of the community. This is the way forward.
I emphatically agree with many things said by Ulster Members about responsibility. The 1920 Act makes it clear that the Northern Ireland Government are responsible for law and order in the Province. This responsibility has been taken away. It was not taken away by amending legislation. I feel that there should have been amending legislation so that we might know where the authority lay. But, as far as the practicalities go, questions are being asked about who are responsible for the movements of the British Army.
It would be absolutely wrong for this House to think that criticism of the British Army and its attitude came only from the Roman Catholic sector of the community. It has come also from the Protestant section. It is no use sweeping things under the carpet; it is better that they should come out into the open. There are members of the Protestant community who have laid their complaints legitimately with the proper authorities and they are being investigated.
I have sought to put forward a viewpoint which perhaps has not been put forward in the House before, and I trust that I have made a useful contribution to the debate. I say as sincerely as I can, "Let the rioting and anarchy in Northern Ireland cease. Let the gunmen be brought to trial. Let us get economic prosperity and achieve something for the betterment of every right-thinking member in our Province".

7.14 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East): This is traditionally a back benchers' day, but I hope that the House will allow me a few minutes in which to put one or two views.
The debate has been marked by an absence of recrimination and of personal attack. If we can show this degree of generosity to each other in this House, with the widely differing views which we hold, perhaps we can hope that our example will spread elsewhere; for if there is one thing which Northern Ireland needs it is generosity and tolerance if the people there are to escape from the all-enveloping chasm of fear into which they have fallen.
I spoke after the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made his maiden speech, and I said that I welcomed his election to the House. Some people thought that my welcome to him was perhaps slightly curious, but I did not mistake my man. I do welcome the hon. Gentleman's election to the House, because I believe that much of what he said today, especially in the last part of his speech, was absolutely true. We all share his condemnation of the gunman and his desire that people should be brought to trial. I am also very close to him in a number of the things he said about the political situation and the social and economic conditions of the people.
There are other differences, but these are important issues and in the few minutes of my speech I do not want to discuss politics or partition or the social condition of the people. I want to discuss two problems: the Army, and the very penetrating questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). However, before doing so, it is proper that I should congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) on inaugurating this useful and helpful debate. Ministers and others sometimes tend to think that debates on delicate situations do not help, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will have no complaint about this debate. The hon. Gentleman put his case very fairly, and I look forward to hearing him speak again on this topic.
I come straight to the question of the Army. In a phrase which I used but which was put to me originally by my

hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the Army went to Northern Ireland as "the friends of all the people". My hon. Friend suggested that phrase to me over the telephone. I picked it up, and I hereby publicly acknowledge that. The Army went there, not as umpires, but to try to ensure that if there were differences between the communities, even-handed justice was dealt out on a basis of impartiality between every citizen, whoever he was. It was clearly seen from the beginning—and this was one of the reasons why I was so reluctant to get into this situation with the British Army—that, although we all said with hope that they would stay for only a few days, we believed in our hearts that they would be there for a long time. We could see this situation coming.
There is no future for the British Army in this situation. This is the problem to which the House must direct its attention. I say without denigrating members of the British Army that they are not policemen. They have not been trained as policemen. They are not criminal investigators. They are a peace-keeping force which is entirely removed from the British concept of how a police force operates. I believe that the greatest problem of the Home Secretary and the Government is how to devise a force or a service which will command the assent of the people of Northern Ireland, yet will have sufficient strength and sufficiently good information to be able to arrest the gunmen, charge them, bring them to trial and, if they are guilty, ensure that they are put away. That is the problem and I wish to make a suggestion later about it.
On occasions hon. Members opposite have complained that the Army has not been sent in to restore what they call law and order in particular areas which are predominantly Catholic. That is not a fair criticism, because the situation existed before the Army went to Northern Ireland. There were "no-go arears" which the R.U.C. did not penetrate before the Army reached there. No doubt the forces could march with fixed bayonets through the streets, but to ask them to attempt to restore the situation is asking too much of them. That is why hon. Members opposite who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland must ask


themselves why the situation had developed in these areas long before the Army was asked to take over in them.
We know the history of the R.U.C. the great majority of the R.U.C. wished to be policemen. They do not have any particular political allegiance—some have, we know, and they have been referred to here this afternoon—but the great majority, in my humble view, want to do their job as policemen do. It is a difficult situation in which to restore their morale, to restore their self-confidence and, of course, as long as we hark back—I recognise the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred—to the situation which certainly arose in 1969 —and no one can deny it—it is easy for anybody to say, "Look, the force has not changed. They are the same people." I want to make a suggestion about that a little later, but I want to say two more things about the Army.
First of all, it is true, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, that complaints have come from all sections of the population, but I think that both my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and the hon. Member for Antrim, North have the responsibility to say to their constituents, "What are these chaps to do? What is the nature of the task they are being given to do?" If there is an allegation that arms are to be found concealed in a house, it may be that they misjudge the situation, but, goodness knows, if they are to look for the arms in a house, how can they possibly search the house unless they take up the floorboards and move the furniture about and possibly leave the house in some disorder? What criticism would the Army be up against if they did not search the house? That is why I say that it is a terrible dilemma, especially for these boys, these young men in the Army. Most policemen who engage in this sort of task are mature men, with families of their own, who know all about household affairs and responsibilities, but these are young boys, 19 or 20 years of age, whom we are having to send into the houses. So I say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West—

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but he was referring to the hon.

Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and surely the point also applies to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his hon. Friends?

Mr. Callaghan: I dare say so. I was not going through all 12 of them. But those two hon. Members I mentioned referred specifically to complaints against the British Army, and I do beg of them that they explain to their constituents what are the difficulties of the British Army in a situation like this today.
That is the first point, and the second point, and the last I want to make about the Army before I move on to the question of Ministerial responsibility, is this: short-term stationing of units, though very desirable, cannot possibly lead to a profound knowledge of the back streets of Belfast, and a whole series of commanding officers going in at relatively short notice cannot possibly have all that information which other people who have been there a long time have. I am sure that they are briefed before they go, but if there is a way of getting a continuation of command then I think it would be extremely helpful in ensuring that misleading information is not acted upon, or that the way in which they behave towards civilians going about their lawful occasions is looked at perhaps a little differently.
That is all I want to say about that matter—

Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth): Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the most tragic things which has happened in the last few weeks is the joining of the young in this violence? It is not the job of the Army to defend themselves against young children throwing things. The job of the Army is to be soldiers.

Mr. Callaghan: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think it is very difficult even for policemen to handle this sort of situation, but it is even more difficult for soldiers armed with rifles and shields, and all the rest of it. It is very hard for a group of armed, disciplined men.
I have one more word about the police. I do not think the Police Authority, in which I reposed a lot of hope, has


exerted itself sufficiently yet. I do not want to be egotistical about this, but the Government of Northern Irlenad agreed on the basis of the Hunt Committee's Report that the direct responsibility of the police to a political Minister should be removed. I believe that to have been a step in the right direction. They introduced the Police Authority on the same lines as those which we have in this country. It was to be jointly made up of people from both communities.
That Police Authority ought to be doing the job, but I have not seen much evidence of it yet. I do not wish to criticise them unduly, but I must say I wonder how far they are fully acquainted with the responsibility they could exert in these matters, and I do hope that the Home Secretary, in his discussions with the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs, who is, of course, the Prime Minister, will take up this point, because I believe that it could remove some of the suspicions which the minority felt. The police were not to do as they had done for 50 years, acting directly responsible to the Minister of Home Affairs, a politician. They were to be responsible to the Police Authority, which is drawn from both communities. I do emphasise that point.
A positive suggestion which I want to make, and which I believe would not be unwelcome to the Home Secretary, whom I certainly do not unduly criticise in these matters, is that we look again at the position of British police officers going to Northern Ireland. I raise this because I see in one of the newspapers this morning that the Police Federation is saying that this would be a very bad thing and would create difficulties. I want to say to the federation that I believe that, in certain circumstances, despite the undertakings which were given in the past, this could be a very great help. I am not referring to uniformed policement going to Northern Ireland. What I am referring to is the prospect of getting people who are well versed in the arts of criminal detection and who could make inroads into the gangsters—gangsters, no doubt, with political opinions, but gangster they are. They have political opinions; I know that; but they are gangsters in their methods.
The police could make inroads into this group. I hope that it is not as big as the hon. Member for Antrim, South suggested. Indeed, I think there is a danger of overplaying their brilliance. I must say that I have seen some pretty odd examples of that brilliance from time to time. They are not as brilliant as all that. However, I feel that if we could get a number of British police officers to go, it would be helpful. It should he done carefully, because we must not destroy the morale of the R.U.C., who have their own feelings about people coming over from this side of the Irish Channel and telling them how to run things. Nevertheless, the R.U.C. is by no means strong enough yet, and its establishment of 5,000 ought to be built up more quickly than it is being built up.
I am not saying anything which I have not said before. I said it two or three years ago. In these circumstances there is a case for the R.U.C. to understand the basis on which this is being done—seeking a skilled British team to go as a unit from this side of the water to try to detect what is happening at the present time to bring some people who are using guns and inciting others to use violence and explosives to justice.
That is all I wish to say about that. One final word on the question of Ministerial responsibility. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South asked all the right questions. They must have concerned the Home Secretary, as they certainly concerned me when I had responsibility for these things. This is a constitutional cat's cradle. There is no doubt about that. It is not designed very clearly, but it can work. If I may say so, the Labour Government had a perfectly good working arrangement and I believe it would work again. There has to be a Minister in the lead. He has to be the conductor of the orchestra. He does not have to play all the instruments, but he has to be constantly there watching over the instruments, seeing each comes in at the right time, encouraging one, keeping others quieter, and generally making certain that the beat is observed. This can be done by co-operation between the British Government and the Northern Ireland Government, and I believe it is the best way of doing it.
If I may say so without disrespect, it is right that the Home Secretary should


be in the lead, as the civilian authority, after full consultation, and he should clearly be seen to be in the lead. In this country we give the Ministry of Defence and the soldiers civilian guidance which is needed in handling what is, essentially, a civilian situation with military overtones. I am sure that that is what the Home Secretary is trying to do.
Likewise, I believe that it can be worked out in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Government and with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that it can be done, but it is important that the Home Secretary should be clearly seen to be in the lead on these matters.
With the forbearance of my colleagues in the last Government—they did have forbearance with me—this position was seen to be pretty clear. I hope that it is the case now, and I hope that it can be done by continued co-operation, but what I found in Northern Ireland time after time was that, if things were allowed to go for a week, the channels of communication silted up. One painfully opened them up and established communication, and within a week the whole thing had gone sour—unless one kept at it whole time. This is a job which demands consistent attack and effort if we are to keep all the instruments in the orchestra in play, to ensure that we are nearer to the kind of peace-keeping which has been spoken about on all sides this afternoon.
I hope that this will not be a sour note on which to end; it is meant to be realistic, not sour. I understand what all hon. Members mean when they talk of democracy and the need to preserve democratic ways. But it is the essence of a democracy that one should be able to change one's Government, and one of the difficulties about Northern Ireland is that, although theoretically one can change one's Government, because of the frozen nature of the situation, there has not been anything but one Government for the last fifty years.
It was in those circumstances that I thought that it was imperative, as a short-term measure, to try to erect a number of instruments which were removed from, although accountable to, the Government, which could be regarded as at any rate approaching the democratic ideal. But I do not believe that we can claim that

there will be full democracy in Ulster until there is a capability of having an alternative Government—

Captain Orr: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member need not get all excited about it. This is a simple statement of fact, and it is one of the things which militates against the present situation being resolved. I have said all that I wanted to say and I have trespassed for a moment on the political front. With that, I thank the House, and resume my seat.

Orders of the Day — 7.33 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis (Armagh): The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke about static politics in Northern Ireland. If he looked at the situation correctly, he would discover that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland vote Unionist because they think that that is the party which will keep them in the United Kingdom. If they were assured that any other party taking office at Stormont would still keep them in, there would be a change of Government.
I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) on his maiden speech. He delivered it with due dignity and decorum, and I hope that he will make many more useful contributions to debates of this kind.
I should like to thank the Home Office —not only the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East but my right hon. Friend—for the part they played in bringing about some semblance of reward to the farmers of Northern Ireland in importing feedingstuffs. A scheme has been announced this week whereby rebates will be applicable to users of feedingstuffs in Northern Ireland which will bring diem more into line with those pertaining in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that I am right to congratulate the Home Office on the part that they have played.
Many suggestions have been made today about solving the present political crisis in Northern Ireland. We have had suggestions of new political moves. I would go along with the suggestion that the restoration of law and order is the number one priority, but this is a very difficult task. I was a member of the


R.U.C. for a number of years, so I know this to be true. I took part in the 1945 disturbances in Belfast, in the very same streets which we have been discussing today. I know how difficult it is to get any semblance of law and order in these so-called "no-go" areas. But we all know that the aim of the Irish Republican Army is to create dissension not only among the Protestant people but also among the Roman Catholic people.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this is a struggle not between Roman Catholics and Protestants but between anarchy and the forces of law and order. I am a leading member of the Orange institution. I have been a member all my life, and since the day I was born my neighbours have always been Roman Catholics. I have always found them helpful. If I required their assistance I got it, and vice versa. The House will understand therefore that the present troubles are not inter-religious but a struggle between anarchy and law and order.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) went way back to 1928, referred to the troubles in Derry and Belfast and criticised the R.U.C. He talked about discrimination. A few facts have been made known, and I think that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was honest enough to say on his visits to Northern Ireland that he believed that the vast majority of local authorities there allocated their houses fairly. That has been borne out by the first report of the Ombudsman.
I am also well aware of the grass roots feeling throughout Northern Ireland about the Province's future prospects. I have given this considerable thought. We can talk here as long as we like about how to solve this problem, but I believe that, when the day dawns when there is a Government in Northern Ireland and a Government in Southern Ireland working under the Government of Westminster in a concerted effort on behalf of the whole people of the United Kingdom—then and then only will we have peace.
This may seem a far distant day, but I am convinced that this country will eventually turn to regionalisation. This House can no longer stand the strain of the amount of legislation which has to pass through it, and many of its respon-

sibilities will be hived off to the regions. Here will be a chance to bring back into the United Kingdom that part of Ireland which opted out in 1921. We had for many years a United Kingdom, and I should like to give this as the basis of my argument.
The Unionists of Northern Ireland never wanted Stormont; they wanted to remain under Westminster. But, as the situation changed so rapidly over the years, the only solution is to have both North and South having their own regional Parliaments, but still under Westminster. Then we would have co-operation, the rule of the gun would disappear, and the rule of law and order would return.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince): Whatever ones views about having one Ireland or about making all of Ireland subservient to this Parliament or uniting all of the people of Ireland in one Garden of Eden under the British Government, certainly Her Majesty's Government would not want that. It is a novel solution, but I do not believe for a moment that it is on.
The whole question of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for Northern Ireland is an interesting one to consider and I was happy to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talk about the Glens. I know them well and I agree with him that in that area one has a predominantly Catholic culture and population. There is also no trouble there, and that is because my co-religionists arc in the majority. This is really the fundamental issue. This applies in Canflough, Cushendun, Cushendall, Ballycastle, and Glen-arm.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke with eloquence, and I was glad to hear him expressing his views in the House. It is always good to hear the extreme point of view expressed in public, and I welcome his presence here. A lot of damage was done in the past because we were not able to discuss matters which we can now discuss. I recall how, when I was on the benches opposite, some of my hon. Friends tried to raise these issues, but were unable to do so. Indeed, a convention was established whereby one did not speak about the


affairs of Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker would rule one out of order. Had that convention not grown up, many of the problems which we are now facing might have been resolved.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite speak as though the reforms which were introduced by my right hon. Friend when we were in power have been implemented. That is far from the truth. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) used to say that there was no need for reforms or commissions to inquire into the affairs of Northern Ireland. One might have had the impression listening to him in the past that everything was in apple pie order. "Evil people are putting wicked things into your heads," he used to say, in effect.

Captain Orr: indicated dissent.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT as having used that device frequently for claiming that there was no need for intervention.
Who were the dishonest and evil people who were putting these nasty thoughts into the minds of people in this country? Consider the position when the Commission took over in Londonderry and when the will of the majority there was frustrated by an electoral device which robbed them of their right to control the County Borough of Derry. That cannot be denied. It was a question of identifying political affiliations, and the majority of Catholics voted Nationalist. In other words, the majority of people did not get the majority of seats because of this device. If we are to solve the problems of Northern Ireland, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Only then will some of the heat begin to be removed from the situation.
I regularly go to Northern Ireland for my holidays. I hope to go next summer and I will probably spend a part of my time in the ancient province of Ulster, and that part of it which I know the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) regards highly. On my visits I meet the ordinary man in the street—the ordinary Catholic and Protestant—and I sympathise to a great extent with much of what I am told by Orangemen.
When I refer to Orangemen I should, perhaps, make a distinction because all too frequently one hears Protestants in general being called Orangemen. I should hate to think of them all being Orangemen. We should certainly not assume that they all are. I appreciate that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South holds a high position in the Orange Order. Be that as it may, whether they are Protestants, Orangemen, Catholics, Republicans, Nationalists, rebels or what have you, I meet them all and speak to them when I go there.
I am used to hearing both the Catholic and Protestant points of view. Protestants tell me of their fears of there being a united Ireland, though they appreciate that they are in a privileged position primarily because of their religious affiliation at the time of the creation of the Six Counties. When Carson was asked by a Unionist hon. Member for a Dublin constituency, "Why have you abandoned us?"—"us" being the Unionists—Carson's co-religionists in the Republic and Carson himself had to reply, "Because we have got as much as we can control. We do not have what we should have on the basis of having a majority in an area. It is just that, looking at Belfast and its environs, we can control so much and no more. We are sorry, but we must abandon you."
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) spoke at length of the concept of a united Ireland. The trouble is that the Unionists have never really wanted it. What they have wanted is to remain with all the privileges that would flow from a united Ireland; and there is, of course, a big difference. For this reason they had to settle for second best.
When we consider the important and well-paid salaried jobs in certain sections of the Northern Ireland community we see that the minority—some put it at 33 per cent.—being Catholics, figure very low down in the list of jobs in those categories. In fact, the percentage is much less than that. Frequently it does not reach 10 per cent.
One speaks of the Commission investigating complaints. How does one expect such a Commission to investigate the complaint of somebody who says, "I did not get that job because of my religion"? Indeed, many Catholics are


not even asked their religion. If I were being interviewed for a job with a Protestant firm in Northern Ireland, very few bookies would give odds on my chances of getting it, my name being McGuire.

Captain Orr: The Commissioner of Complaints is not empowered to inquire. He is empowered to hear the complaint and then to inquire. It would obviously be up to Mr. McGuire, in the instance which the hon. Gentleman gave. If Mr. McGuire felt that he had been discriminated against on grounds of religion or because his name happened to be McGuire, he could take it to the Commissioner. However, the evidence from the Commissioner shows that there have been a minimal number of complaints and that those which have been investigated have had no substance.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember the famous correspondence with the Bishop of Down. The man in question had the same name as myself, but he happened to be an Orangeman—one or two of us have gone astray.
The works were in Belfast, where the man admitted that, as a deliberate policy he did not employ Catholics, and he tried to put the best complexion possible on that policy by saying that it would annoy the other people if they got to know that the new man was a Catholic. One cannot have much more blatant discrimination than that. There is still a lot of ground for complaint on that score, but there was much more in years past.
Protestants have expressed the fear that their culture, religion and way of life would be submerged and weakened, and that there would be a tendency for them to be dictated to not so much by the government of a united Ireland as by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church which would put pressures, subtle and otherwise, on such a government to carry out policies detrimental to Protestants. That is a general feeling that I have had expressed to me outside the House and inside. The hon. Member for Antrim, North pointed out that in the Constitution of the Irish Republic a special place is given to the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland. I myself would not care one whit if that were removed. If to do so would remove such fears I would have it removed at once.
One of the good things is that we are now able to read what is said and done by men like Dr. Noel Brown in the Republic. His name springs to mind because he was considered to be a victim of this kind of strategy. I have never met the man, but what I have read of him I like. I particularly like anyone who professes Socialist convictions, and they are certainly wide ranging enough. Dr. Noel Brown is at present conducting a series of meetings—perhaps I should have said" seminars", because no one nowadays ever has just a meeting. His articles have appeared in the Irish Times and the Irish Press. He is now discussing social reforms including such things as abortion, birth control and the like, which were topics at one time anathema to anyone representing the extreme view in the Republic. I do not think that they are good things, but this dialogue is taking place, and I believe that the special place accorded to the Catholic Church is simply a recognition of facts.
I remember listening to John Hume, who was, I think, the Stormont Member for Foyle. He was discussing what offended him as a Protestant—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Mr. Cooper, who is a Protestant living in mid-Derry. I think that he is the man to whom the hon. Member refers. Mr. Hume is a Roman Catholic.

Mr. McGuire: I am wrong, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting me right. The man I have in mind is Mr. Ivan Cooper who is a Nationalist Member of the Stormont Parliament. He was discussing with members of the Irish Government, members of the Dail, what would help to bring about a change in attitude towards the concept of a united Ireland. Here, I must say, in case anyone should misunderstand me, that I am a great believer in that concept, but in peaceful means of attaining it. Some people may say that it will never come about in that way, to which I reply that it will never come about any other way.
Mr. Cooper was setting out in his discussion things which offended him, a broad-minded Protestant representing what are generally called Catholic interests. He mentioned this giving of a special place in the Constitution to the Catholic Church. I emphasise once more


that to do so merely recognises a fact. I do not think that things would be altered very much if that special place were removed, or if the Church had never had a special place.
He also referred to the Angelus coming over on the radio at noon and at 6 o'clock, and said that this created friction because it was strange and foreign to the Protestant ear. The dialogue was about whether it would much matter if that practice had never been started in the first place and what would result if it were now dropped. If it were dropped, of course, there would be reaction from those supporting it, but that is by the way.
The great thing about this present debate is that it is taking place in this House of Commons. For far too long we were frustrated by a convention in our desire to discuss something that was happening in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but that convention has now been swept away.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North tells us that he represents working class Protestants. He has been quoted in the newspapers as saying that he is the sign of rebellion against the castle—the men at the top. One of the hon. Gentleman's strongest supporters appeared on television the other night. He is the Rev. William Beattie and he is a member of the Stormont Parliament. He said something which I find very difficult to accept, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has also said that he finds difficult to accept.
How can one say to a man, in this case to a Catholic that one admires him as a man and considers him to be as good as any other man and then utterly to belittle his religion and his religious beliefs, which are bound to some extent to be part of him? What would be the reaction if what has been suggested of Catholics was applied to the Jews, accepting—and this is debatable—that the Jews are a race, though the Arabs do not agree, and that one can have an atheistic Jew? We usually identify Jewish people as being bound up with the Jewish faith: it is part and parcel of their life. It is a contradiction in terms to say to such a man, "I do not mind you as a man, but I utterly demean, repudiate, hate and detest your religious beliefs".
The greatest contribution that the hon. Member for Antrim, North can make is to lower the temperature. If he wants to have theological discussions, he can have them. There is much that he and I would believe in about Christianity, although he would probably have the edge on me in a theological discussion.
I say "probably", because just before my election as the Member for Ince my agent told me that a vicar wanted to see me. This vicar was considered to be a very effective opponent of Roman Catholicism; he almost had a weekly column on the subject. I said, "I do not see why I must see him". My agent said, "I think you had better see him. He has a point of view and it is about your being a Catholic. In the first place, he does not think that you should have been selected Calithumpean." I said, "The Labour Party does not bother about whether a man is an atheist, a Jew, a Calithumpean, a Baptist or a Catholic. If he has satisfied the basic requirements, his religious convictions are no concern of the party". That is our great boast.
Anyway, I was prevailed upon to see the vicar, who thereupon engaged in a tirade to the effect that I had to take part in prayers here. The vicar obviously had an exaggerated opinion of the efficacy of prayers in the House of Commons. He must have thought that we were all queueing here to pray, whereas we know that if we queue for anything it is to get tickets.
The vicar said to me—as the hon. Gentleman's companion last night said—that he utterly detested and hated my religious beliefs and he did everything possible to demean them. I said to the vicar, as I say to the hon. Gentleman, "We are bound to have certain common areas". The vicar did not like our sacraments, and so on. However, we had a theological discussion, after which we parted the best of friends; because the proof of the pudding was in the eating. The vicar had had misconceptions about the role of Catholic Members of Parliament who happened to be Labour Members. Anyone can get misconceptions.
I am proud to say that after that when that vicar wanted a school to be opened, a May queen to be crowned, or a Christmas bazaar to be opened, the Member for Ince was the first person he called


on. The vicar said to me that that was the first time that he had a straight forward discussion with somebody like me. Although I am not a pious Catholic, I am very proud to be a Catholic. We found some common ground and the vicar's misconceptions were the fewer as a result.
I therefore think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has a very important part to play in Northern Ireland, because he is a very powerful figure. He knows the power he has to influence people's minds. However, it is a contradiction for someone to say that he does not mind Catholics as people but he utterly detests and hates that which is bound to be part of their make-up. That does not help at all.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot know what my colleague said, for I did not see the programme. In the City of Belfast recently the leading Jesuit protagonist of the hon. Gentleman's church—the Rev. Thomas Corbishly—and myself had a debate at Queen's University. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about Queen's University, he will know the types of debate that have taken place there in the past. However, the Rev. Thomas Corbishly and I had one of the best debates that has ever been held there. I believe that a man can sincerely hold strong religious views and can be opposed to the views of his constituents in these matters, but these things do not hinder many scores of the hon. Gentleman's co-religionists in the Glens of Antrim from flocking to my advice centre. After I have dealt with their parliamentary matters, many a time we have a theological discussion, but we do not go away sharpening our knives one against the other. The hon. Gentleman misrepresents my point of view in putting forward so strongly what he is saying this afternoon. I do not believe that he would want to do that.

Mr. McGuire: I do not suppose that we can reach agreement on that, but that is how I and many of my co-religionists react and how many people who have no religious convictions react. When the man who has no religious convictions listens to a debate between Catholic and Protestant, he probably says, as the man from Wigan said, "Thank God I am an atheist".
The hon. Member for Antrim, North, with his command of language and the

way he has of inspiring people, would better serve the people in having theological discussions, if he wants to have them with someone, with somebody like the Rev. Thomas Corbishly. I read and heard of the very famous debate the hon. Gentleman had with that person. I believe that it was attended by a full house. That was a testimony of the eloquence of both religious gentlemen, but I think it occurred primarily because people wanted to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for not having been here to listen to his speech.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) went to Belfast in August, 1969, his very first public utterance was that he had not been in Northern Ireland for more than a very short time before he realised that there were far too many guns about for people's comfort. This was why when we were debating the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill we referred to this and said that there was a danger that the store of weapons would be legally increased and that people who had demonstrated in the past how they would use guns would be able to get their hands on guns legally.
How does the Minister of State propose to curb these official rifle clubs or B Special clubs, whose past history means that they are effectively restricted to a certain class of person, which could be a very dangerous position and which is causing concern? I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell the House what plans the Government have to curb this and strictly examine existing clubs and, if necessary, reduce their number.
On the question of arms searches, the worst thing the House could do would be to attribute to our soldiers all the qualities under the sun and say that they had no vices. Inevitably, our soldiers take with them the prejudices that they have acquired throughout their lives. This applies particularly with regiments and soldiers from certain parts of the United Kingdom who are known from past history to have an unfortunate historical association with Ireland.
The Army authorities would be wise to ensure that as far as possible such people do not get a chance to carry their prejudices to excess—for instance, on legitimate arms searches. I am convinced that


there have been excesses and that there are legitimate grounds for complaint. These should be avoided. I think, too, that there should be impartiality when there are searches. If there is cause to believe that there are guns in two areas, a search should not be made only in one area. There should be a fully effective and humane search in both areas.
I did not listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. I was out having a cup of tea. But I think the position of the Government of the Republic of Ireland has been misrepresented, quite unwittingly, from the benches opposite in debates of this kind. The Prime Minister of the Republic, the Taioseach, has been very courageous in denouncing the use of force as a means of achieving a united Ireland. He has come under a lot of pressure for so doing. But I think we should extend the hand of friendship from this House to the Republic. I am on good grounds when I say that, because I remember that the present Lord Chancellor, when in this House, said precisely that in a similar debate. He said that for far too long in this House, apart from Members who are Irish like myself, there has been a tendency, not overtly to demean, but nevertheless to slight the Government of the Republic.
Not always have we recognised the pressure which exists there. The year 1921 is not far away in terms of history. It is these kinds of pressures which the Prime Minister of the Republic is meeting very fairly and courageously, and we should pay more attention to him; we should pay a tribute to him and extend the hand of friendship.
Ultimately the real solution to the problem is economic. Theological debates, important and interesting as they are, are not the real solution. When we have a prosperous republic, unity will inevitably come. It will flow from measures of co-operation, from tourism, electricity supplies, fisheries and the like. This will inevitably lead people to say, "If we can co-operate and get such mutual benefit, why do we have to remain divided?"
The first solution is not to maintain the special privilege which was given to the people of the Six Counties in 1921. This could not happen in any part of the world today. The Six Counties were given a

special privilege, and they abused it. I believe they have seen the folly of their ways. This House, in being able to debate the past follies, may be able to show the way to future peace and happiness in that unhappy Province.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North): I have heard the word "discrimination" used in this Chamber this afternoon, and, indeed, I myself have been the subject of some discrimination by some of my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist group because I speak without the benefit of the briefing which the Ulster Prime Minister gave to my Ulster Unionist colleagues. I know that I irritate them from time to time because I cannot stand humbug, and I always like to prick the bubble of hypocrisy whenever I see it. By the same token, I do not mind them criticising me. It was only from the Lobby correspondent of the Irish Times that I learned that the Ulster Prime Minister had met my colleagues at 2.30 this afternoon. As I say, I speak without the benefit of the briefing which he gave to them.
I do not intend to speak for long and, therefore, my remarks may be somewhat disjointed. We heard the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who succeeded me in that constituency, and who makes very rare appearances in this House as opposed to the attendances which I made in the period 1964–66. Listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, West, one can imagine the politicians of the past who spoke in this House and in Dublin throughout the centuries. In fact, from what he and some other hon. Members opposite said, one would think that trouble in the Province occurred only in the period since Ulster was established. That is not so. I remember reading—I took a note of it—a remark made by one well-known literary figure. He said:
They say it is the fatal destiny of that land
referring to Ireland—
that no purposes whatsoever that are meant for her good will prosper.
That was written by Edmund Spencer 400 years ago. I could give other quotations from Macaulay and others who have despaired of the violence demonstrated in every part of Ireland.
When we speak of violence we should remember that when the Irish Free State was created in 1921 two famous men,


whose views I would not agree with but who are worthy of the Irish nation, were murdered. There was Michael Collins who was shot down not by Unionists or by Protestants but by the Irish Republican Army. There was Kevin O'Higgins who was shot down, on his way to Mass, by the same people who were proud to call themselves Irish patriots.

Mr. McGuire: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman for the sake of historical accuracy? No one knows who shot either Michael Collins or Kevin O'Higgins. If I remember aright, Collins was shot when he was leading the Free State troops in that period of the civil war, or slightly before, and there was a sweep in a certain area of County Cork. He was shot at Beal Na Blagh, and nobody knows to this day who shot him.

Mr. Kiliedder: I am grateful to the hon. Member. At this hour of the night I do not intend to go into Irish history, except to say that there were bitter fights between the Irish Republican Army and the Government forces of that day. In Ulster the people were trying to create a prosperous State, despite the difficulties and the hardships brought about by the economic situation of the 1920s.
I believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is right. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. I, and I believe every hon. Member, will agree with him in that. One way in which we can help—a small way, perhaps—is by ensuring that in Northern Ireland High Court judges are not appointed from Cabinet Ministers. This would be one way in which we could prove the sincerity of the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members criticised the Unionists. I am not going to repeat what they have said, but it is perfectly clear that they are blind to the inaction of the minority. The Ulster people always wanted the minority to play an active part in the life of Northern Ireland. We all know that Northern Ireland cannot be a viable unit unless every citizen plays his part. We on this side of the House want prosperity in Ulster, not just for Protestants or Unionists but for everyone —Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and Nationalists as well as Unionists. We cannot have prosperity while the gunman is allowed to shoot down

innocent people in the Roman Catholic areas. While the gunman is allowed to shoot down our soldiers, we cannot have prosperity. The very employers whom we wish to attract to Northern Ireland are frightened away from establishing factories there.
In the debate on Rolls-Royce the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) feared the result of the cancellation of the RB211 contract, saying that it could mean the end of Short Brothers itself. What would happen, he asked, when 6,000 or 7,000 men were thrown on the streets?
—"Idle hands would soon turn to dangerous and perhaps evil ways in today's conditions in Northern Ireland".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 95.]
He included in his forebodings not only Short Brothers but Rolls-Royce, too, whose factory is in my constituency. I do not for a moment accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, that the decent hardworking employees of those two factories would, if they became unemployed, take up the gun or engage in any criminal conduct.
I was very upset on Sunday evening to see what appeared on B.B.C. television. An Irish Republican Army song was broadcast. It went into the homes of the people of Belfast, Protestant homes as well as Roman Catholic, and that only a few days or a week after the shooting down of a young soldier. It is terrible that an organisation like the British Broadcasting Corporation could wantonly broadcast such a thing over the air, and, what is more, to a part of the country, in Newcastle, where the relatives of that young solid soldier live. I cannot understand how the B.B.C. could behave in such a wilful and wanton fashion.
Independent Television has its share of responsibility, too, for it broadcast an interview with one of the leaders of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. This also is bound to add to the tension in Northern Ireland. Unless these organisations exercise some responsibility, there will be no lessening of tension in the Province.
If the voice of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland could be heard directly in this Chamber, they—not the minority—would be heard crying out for justice and for understanding. No


other people in modern times have been so unfairly denigrated and maligned by politicians and by the news media as have the Unionists of Northern Ireland. No other State in history has been so wilfully forced by threats and blackmail, one might almost call it, to reorganise its whole domestic government in so brief a span of time as has Northern Ireland. We in this House know how difficult it is to prepare the way for legislation and pass it through Parliament. The same time ought to be granted to Northern Ireland.
There have been references to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I believe that it is this force which, when the Army leaves Northern Ireland as one day it must, will take over the protection of people and property in the Province. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us what ideas he has for providing financial assistance to members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, who are not paid by their employers when they take days off to serve with the Regiment.
I was not present when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke, but I believe that he referred to the Irish Republican Army funerals which took place recently in Belfast. They were an obvious provocation to the people there. I am not sure where the responsibility lies, but I assume that it must lie with the Security Committee of the Stormont Government. It is no use blaming the Army. I am the first to criticise any member of the forces who acts in a way he should not, but I do not think that we can blame the Army for the occurrence of that procession.
I put on record my admiration for the way in which the Army has behaved in Northern Ireland, and on this I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who is critical of the Army.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend should not say that. In fact, no one has been more consistent than I have in praising the work of the Army in Northern Ireland and in defending it both in the House and outside. I should take grave exception to any suggestion to the contrary.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps my recollection is not good—perhaps I am the best Irishman because I have a very bad memory—but my recollection was that he had attacked the Government here for the way in which they were discharging their security rôle in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is not to put it in the words which I used, but I felt that there was an inference of criticism not only of the Government but of the British Army's activities in the Province.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is true that I have certain criticisms of the way in which the security rôle was being discharged, but I am sure that even my hon. Friend will understand that that is wholly different from criticising the conduct of our soldiers, who have behaved with great endurance and great valour and, on the whole, with great skill in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall close with two other comments, first about education, and second, about employment.
I have always regarded separate education in Ulster as tending to continue the divisions into the future. I should like to see all boys and girls, irrespective of their religion, educated at the same schools. It is no good saying, "Let them get together when they are 16, 17, 18 or 19". They should be together when they are toddlers, children of 5, 6 and 7, so that they may not only learn together but play together and grow up together. In this way, we could see an end to the real division which exists in Northern Ireland.
I interrupted the hon. Member for Belfast, West on the question of unemployment, and put to him that if all the people who emigrated to this country had stayed in the Irish Republic the unemployment situation there would be as grave as it is today in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGuire: As it similarly would be in Wales or Scotland.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but then why do not the unemployed people in the areas to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred emigrate if they cannot get work in Northern Ireland? There is work in


the new city of Craigavon, but they can not get enough people to work there. If the unemployed in the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred cannot get work in the Province, why do not they come to England to work, like the people from Eire? The reason is that in Northern Ireland, as here, we have the Welfare State, with unemployment benefits and family benefits. As a result, a man with a dozen children—and there are many such people in Northern Ireland —can receive more while unemployed than if he is working. Either something must be done about that, or wages in Northern Ireland must be increased to the same level as in this country. In that way, perhaps we might provide the incentive for people to work.

Mr. McGuire: If a certain section of the community is discriminated against and denied jobs, to ask "Why do not they go to England?" is to hope that as a result of discrimination they will leave so that the impression is given that there is no problem. Our case is that there is discrimination, and the majority of people who are asked to come over happen to be non-Unionist supporters.

Mr. Kilfedder: I was finishing with my last sentence before the hon. Gentleman intervened. But may I say in conclusion that whenever the accusing finger is pointed at Northern Ireland, we should look at the facts. The population has increased slowly in the Republic as compared with Northern Ireland. There is greater emigration from the Republic. It is only minmal in Northern Ireland. This seems to indicate that there is no oppression or discrimination in Ulster, because as most people point out, the Roman Catholic minority will be in a majority before the end of the century. That is what people say.

Mr. Fitt: It has been a fallacy promulgated in Northern Ireland throughout the years that 51 per cent, of the school children now attending primary schools are Roman Catholic, and that in 10 to 15 years they will compose the majority in Northern Ireland. But what has happened over the past 50 years is that when those children leave school they find it impossible to get a job in Northern Ireland because of the discrimination that has existed. That may change a little now. Those children, being unable to

find employment in their own homeland, will have to go somewhere else, and the Unionists will still be in control.

Mr. Kilfedder: I will not be enticed into speaking longer, because other hon. Members wish to speak. Not only do Roman Catholic school children and university graduates go to England but so do their Protestant brothers and sisters. That is one of the contributions that Northern Ireland makes to the wealth of this country. We pay for their education in Northern Ireland and the brain drain is to England, Scotland and Wales, which enjoy the benefits.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder (Belfast, South): This debate was described in the local papers in Northern Ireland as the debate that nobody wants. That was the Press comment in newspapers on both sides of the political spectrum, so I suppose that it was inevitable that quite a number of us should have approached the debate in that same mood. But for once I have been utterly confounded by a Northern Ireland debate in this House, because with one exception, and only for a short period, the debate has been the most free from acrimony of any that I can recall during my seven years in the House. 1 shall come to the brief lapse of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in a moment, but I fully understand his position in the matter.
The debate has been of value. I do not think that anyone could pretend for a moment that somebody, somewhere, would find the light that would solve the problem of Northern Ireland. But the mere fact that we have been able to have a debate of over four hours containing speeches from very different viewpoints yet all having as one central theme a genuine and total condemnation of violence, from whatever source, is encouraging. That in itself is something which I do not think we have previously seen in Northern Ireland debates in this House.
Equally, there has been a marked resistance to the temptation to rake over the embers of history. Nobody disputes—certainly, not even Lord Cameron disputed—that the Ulster man is enmeshed by the burdens of history. So often, there has been the temptation to go back to find arguments to justify almost any viewpoint which one has cared to express.


Again, we have had marked good fortune in avoiding this.
There has also been—and I am glad that the debate developed as it did—relatively little talk about possible political solutions. It is right that these should have been relegated to a subordinate position in our thinking, for the simple reason that political solutions, whatever they may be, are of precious little value until such time as we have some form of stability on the streets of Belfast, and, indeed, Londonderry and other parts of Northern Ireland where there have been outbreaks of violence. I may be wrong in this, but my view is that everything is secondary until we have peace on the streets in our cities once again.
Frequent reference has been made to varying aspects of the much-publicised funerals of Republicans on Tuesday of last week. I do not want to rake over those, but I believe with some of my hon. Friends that it is little short of a miracle that there was not an outburst of appalling violence in Belfast that night. I remember being detained upstairs in Committee on the Coal Industry Bill when news came from home that all was quiet. I thought that we had, perhaps, achieved the first signs of a return to stability and sanity when the tremendous provocations which those funerals had presented had not sparked off the possible backlash that one had feared and that restraint and common sense had prevailed.
Having said that, however, there is no shadow of doubt that fear still exists in many parts of Belfast. That fear is frequently coupled with frustration, the frustration that the very lifeblood of the Province seems to be draining away, and yet, with the best will in the world, one has the most acute difficulty in being able to find possible solutions to our problems.
I do not belong to the internment lobby. I do not like that sort of thing, although I am quite prepared to recognise that circumstances may arise in which it becomes inevitable. One does so, however, very much as a last resort.
One thing that is rather upsetting is that we seem to be getting to the point at which the number of options remaining open to the security forces is beginning to become narrower owing to the apparent, almost steady, inexorable esca-

lation of violence, which seemingly no methods have so far been able adequately to contain.
I am convinced that the Army in Northern Ireland has displayed a fortitude which is beyond reproach. It is a ghastly job for soldiers to have to carry out the sort of functions which they are being asked to do in Northern Ireland. Reference has been made to the quick turnover of personnel and the fact that many of them are there for only four months. During this period, however, most of us have got to know quite a number of soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland in each unit, and it is appalling to think of the conditions in which they have had to live and work. They have shown much more self-discipline and self-control in the sort of situations that they have faced than I could ever have done. I certainly do not belong to the lobby which condemns the Army for some of the incidents which have happened.
There have, of course, been unhappy incidents, but they have been due to lack of local knowledge. Therefore, the new arrangements whereby there is much closer liaison between the Army and the police have gone a long way, if not the whole way, towards eliminating the source of that problem.
Hon. Members opposite have criticised the arms searches, I think unfairly, certainly judging by the quantities of ammunition and weaponry which have been found. There may be an anti-rumour service in Belfast, but nothing spreads faster than the idea that someone, somewhere has a gun. From one gun in one street, it grows to "x" number of automatics in an area, and the rumour escalates until people are at breaking point. There cannot be proper peace in Belfast until all unauthorised weapons are unearthed, because of the rumour content.
It is easy to talk with hindsight and emphasise some events which may have happened in the past. In the statement of 29th January, issued after the meeting between the Northern Ireland Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State at the Home Office, I was delighted to see in paragraph 9:
… the aim of the security forces in riot situations is … 'not simply to contain


riotous behaviour but to seek out and subject to the rule of law those who take part in it and particularly those who foment and lead it'.
That statement did a great deal to take much of the heat out of the situation. The containment argument has ceased to be valid and has been superseded by a more determined approach to riot behaviour.
I have found it difficult to accept the apparent contradiction between the words and actions of prominent spokesmen from time to time. I am thinking of the former G.O.C., Sir Ian Freeland, in that now famous "Panorama" programme on a Monday early in April last year in which he said that petrol bombers were liable to be shot. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will recall that that was said on the eve of a debate on Northern Ireland in this House.
Many people, including myself, welcomed that "get tough" statement. However, subsequently petrol bombs were thrown and the Army appeared not to enforce the rather rough words uttered by the G.O.C. That sort of situation did nothing to help the credibility of the Army, and I hope that that sort of dichotomy is now behind us and that if tough words are uttered in the future, they will be followed by actions of a similar kind. The current situation does not allow of any one talking tough and acting soft.
Many people may wonder why the communiqué of 29th of last month went out of its way in paragraph 8 to make it clear that
… it is affirmed once again that Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom is a matter for the Parliament and people of Northern Ireland and will be maintained by both Governments against all kinds of violence or subversive activity.
It may be that one reason why it is necessary to reiterate that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) made clear, that one of the aims and objectives of the Irish Republican Army is so to weaken public opinion here that Britain will become tired of the problem of Northern Ireland. If that is the case, the reiteration of the statement that subversive activity will not daunt the constitutional arrangement is to be welcomed.
I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will never write a history

book. If he does, it will contain even more inaccuracies of fact than many which are in current circulation. I will not go over all his points, because he has been more than adequately answered on many of them. However, I take exception to one. He talked in a historical context about the minority having been excluded. That is a very unfair statement when it applied to a section of a community which almost wilfully refused to co-operate with the institutions being established in the infant days of Northern Ireland. Places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserved for the minority were not taken up. The result was a weakened force which had to be strengthened wherever recruits could be found.

Mr. Fitt: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that on the Corporation of the City of Belfast there are a number of non-Unionist representatives and that not one has ever been offered the vice-chair-manship or chairmanship of any committee? Does he further agree that only in the past five or six weeks one well-known anti-Unionist and independent member was rumoured to be getting the vice-chairmanship of the Parks and Cemeteries Committee but that Unionist members turned up in force and voted against his nomination? This has happened in local authorities up and down Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) aware that this is true not only of Republicans and Nationalists but of Unionists and that it is not discrimination on religious grounds but discrimination because of political party affiliation which dominates local authorities?

Mr. Pounder: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for answering the question for me. That was a perfectly fair comment. I am not aware that the party winning power goes round sharing the offices among many other people.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others mentioned the proportional representation argument. This is a hare which one sees running occasionally, but I should have thought that proportional representation would be the worst thing possible for a


country like Northern Ireland, because where there is proportional representation, there tends to be political fragmentation —they tend to go hand in hand.
There has not been a stable Government, in terms of a reasonable working majority, in Dublin for many years, but there have been knife edges where Governments there have held on by two's and three's with the help of independents. There was the classic situation of France before the war where there were over 60 political parties. We emphatically do not want that situation in Northern Ireland and because of that I am not enamoured of the idea of proportional representation.
I make a comment about the Ulster Defence Regiment to have the matter looked at rather than to ask for a specific answer now. At the weekend, the local papers in Northern Ireland said that certain employers were being less than considerate or co-operative to employees who were enrolled members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The lack of co-operation included not making up the loss of pay for men on duty and not giving time off for training facilities.
I know that the charge was strenuously denied subsequently by a member of the Joint Security Committee in Northern Ireland. However, the only two questions I was asked over the weekend both concerned constituents whom I know well and whom I know to be members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and who both said that the charge was absolutely fair, that some employers were not being as co-operative as they might be in giving members of the U.D.R. time off for duties and training. In view of the valuable work which the U.D.R. is doing in Northern Ireland, if there is any substance in these charges—and it is my personal opinion that there probably i—I hope that they will be investigated to ensure that every facility and assistance are given to men giving their time, energy and talents to the Ulster Defence Regiment so that they may do their full duties properly.
I come finally to an economic consideration. Street violence has had its inevitable effect on industrial investment in Northern Ireland. But we have two additional problems. One is the level of

inducements which Northern Ireland can offer vis-à-vis other parts of the country, but we have further difficulty in that we start from the position of what by English standards is abnormally high unemployment. This is a perennial problem.
When we have a high level of unemployment followed by competition from other areas for new industry and a riot situation which has been heavily publicised over the last couple of years, clearly we could be in acute economic difficulties. Compounding this has been the 1969 squeeze. I do not make this as a partisan point, but simply in an economic sense. It is a well-known economic fact that it takes a minimum of 12 months, more likely 18 months, for a credit squeeze, once imposed, to soak its way through the economy, starting with a shortage in the money supply situation, leading ultimately to the laying-off of labour.
We are now in that situation. The shortage of money has inevitably led to a cut-back in industrial development and investment. Additionally, owing to the shortage of money, there have been redundancies in existing firms. When that situation is produced on top of a basic unemployment level of 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. we are in great economic difficulties.
I have an ingrained dislike of special pleading but I should be negligent as an Ulster Member if I did not draw special attention to the economic consequences we are still suffering as a result of the 1969 squeeze. The hon. Member for Antrim, North ventured to suggest that by the end of the year our unemployment levels could be very high indeed, and I certainly would not dissent from that gloomy forecast. Like him I would be loth to put a figure on the likely projection. Even if there were an immediate reflation, that, too, would take time to bite. Therefore, whatever happens in 1971 we are in an acutely difficult economic situation in Northern Ireland. Is there anything that can be done to bring about a quick and effective alleviation, if only a short-term alleviation, so that we may be cushioned against the worst effects of the present situation?
The Northern Ireland Government with the assistance of London has worked manfully over the years to attract new


industry. As John Thompson said in the Sunday Telegraph:
The giant cranes of the shipyard, the humming new factories—these ought to be the realities of the new Ulster.
I could not agree more. Whatever social and economic plans there are for the future they require, as a prerequisite, the establishment of peace on the streets of Belfast. I will go along with any necessary action to achieve that.
It seems incredible that in part of the United Kingdom we should have to talk about peace in the streets being a prerequisite to getting on with other things but that is the situation and we must face up to it. I hope that we shall be able to turn the corner and I hope that the future will not be as gloomy as many of us in Northern Ireland fear. I trust that peace, good sense and a complete ending of all violence are not far distant.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East): I will try to be brief because although I put my name down to speak in the debate I am aware that it has gone on for five hours and that Ulster Members have had a fair crack of the whip. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) upon the way in which he opened the debate with a very well-informed and interesting speech. I look forward to more contributions from him.
We have had a lively and interesting debate, perhaps one of the best that I have heard on the subject in the 12 or so years that I have been a Member of the House. I want to concentrate on one or two points. I should like first to say how much I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given so much of his time to us, having sat through most of the debate. I saw the Prime Minister here at one time and the Minister of State for Defence. Many other right hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House have been here, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). This is an indication of the importance of this subject.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the ôle of the Army in Northern Ireland. He said that

when the Army went to Northern Ireland there were "no-go areas". He wondered what one expected. Did one expect the Army to go into those areas? I ask him to consider the alternative. The police forces, as a result of the Report of the Hunt Committee which the right hon. Gentleman supported, had been disarmed and our home militia, the B Specials, had been disbanded. Is one expected to accept the state of affairs referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North when crimes are committed in Belfast? I refer not to civil disorder but ordinary crimes. I also have had a report of a person in my constituency whose car was taken. In his case they "upped the ante" and made it £25 before the car would be returned.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North and Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I believe that law and order must be restored in Belfast and, indeed, the whole of Northern Ireland. How can it be restored by unarmed police going into areas where people are heavily armed and where attacks are frequently made on members of the police and the Army and where civilians are murdered? There have been vicious attacks with guns and explosives. The nail bombs, about which we have all heard, are extremely vicious weapons.
Although I do not like to see the Army performing a quasi police rôle, it is the only force available to do it. Although I followed the point of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I do not see any alternative to the Army re-entering those areas and re-establishing law and order.

Mr. Callaghan: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the members of the R.U.C. were armed at a time when they were not entering these areas. Disarmament had nothing to do with whether they went into them or not. It was not right at the time to put an unfair burden on British soldiers when armed civilian police could not undertake that task. That was the only point which I made.

Mr. McMaster: I want to take the matter a stage further. At that time the police were extremely hard pressed in Londonderry. It would have been impossible for them to have restored law and order throughout Northern Ierland or, indeed, in any other part of the United Kingdom similarly affected by


attempted anarchy. The rôle of the Army has always been to back up the civil forces in such circumstances.
Reference was made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to the skill with which the Republican elements in Northern Ireland had been pursuing their campaign against Northern Ireland. He has under-estimated the skill of their campaign—the way in which they originally used the civil rights movement to stir up trouble and the way in which articles in the Press like that by Tony Geraghty in the Sunday Times yesterday, taking a very biassed pro-Republican line, have been written. The way in which they have managed to infiltrate the mass media of the Press and B.B.C. shows the skill with which they have been carrying on their campaign against Northern Ireland.
Indeed, the publicity which they have received has done a great deal of damage to the cause of Northern Ireland because very often the truth is distorted in the arguments which have occurred—because of the way in which they have managed, even in this debate, to attempt to persuade the House of Commons that the root of the trouble is purely a religious difference. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) spent a lot of time in dealing with this point.
The point is, of course—and I believe this to be true—not one of religious difference, but one of political difference. The trouble in Ireland is one of a struggle for political power. A minority in the population, a convinced Republic minority, want to seize power in Northern Ireland. They are quite obviously not content with using ordinary constitutional means to do this. They will resort to any means at all, as they have done, resulting in the tragic death in my constituency of Gunner Curtis just a week ago. They are prepared to use any means at all to force their will upon the population, not only of Northern Ireland but of the United Kingdom as a whole. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to one of the aims of the Republicans in Northern Ireland—and it is a very real fear—and that is to make the population in the rest of the United Kingdom thoroughly fed up with the whole situation so that they

will put pressure on the Government to withdraw the troops from Northern Ireland.
I do not believe it is possible, but I do believe very firmly that the campaign, which was originally launched by certain Republicans in Ulster some 18 months ago, starting in the summer of 1969, has brought a great deal of misery to their own people. It has led to houses being burned down, to factories being destroyed, to people living in fear and suffering, to new industry, as other hon. Members have pointed out, being frightened away from Northern Ireland, and to existing industries being contracted.
The publicity which has been given to the Republican cause on this side of the Irish Channel has done a great deal to further that, because it has given encouragement to the minority that they would achieve their ends. I would say that there is a clear duty on the organs of the Press, and on the B.B.C. particularly, to act in a more responsible fashion, to bear in mind all the time that the more publicity they give to the minority, the more they encourage them, the more harm they do to that unfortunate minority.
I should just like to say a word on the role of the Army.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman giving way. I am somewhat concerned about his use of the word "minority". I wonder whether he would make it clear. When he talks about "a minority" and an "unfortunate minority", is he talking about the 35 per cent, of the religious minority? Or is he talking about the minority within the minority—people who are, perhaps, I.R.A. or pro-I.R.A.? Or is he talking about the minority within the majority—for instance, the Ulster Volunteers, people of that nature? He must be more precise in the use of these terms, because otherwise, while he may have the sympathy of the House in some of the things he is saying, he may create resentment on this side of the House because of a loose use of terms.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry. I thought I had made it quite clear a few moments ago, when I said I was not referring to a religious division. The hon. Gentleman


may not have been listening, but he will find it in HANSARD. I am referring to the Republican minority, the Republican element in Northern Ireland—simply and solely to that. People of the religious persuasion to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, and many others, on both sides of the House, Roman Catholics—and I hesitate to use that term because it becomes so emotive in this situation and so confusing—who support the constitutional position. I would never allege that this is a religious division or cause of trouble. There are many moderate Roman Catholics in Nothern Ieland who are at the moment terrorised by the Republicans and who perhaps give them positive assistance or contribute to their collection because of the present intimidation in Belfast.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I should like to come back to this point. When he talks about the aims of minorities, he should make it clear that he is talking of people of Republican persuasion who are seeking to use violence to attain a political end. We must do this, because all his phrases could have been grossly misinterpreted without his later explanation.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member puts it in a nutshell. I do mean Republicans who are prepared to use the rifle and gelignite.
Knowing and having visited all sites of my constituency, I can see the Army's problem, particularly in carrying out searches, and I can imagine the resentment which may be caused there and how moderate people may be driven into one extreme camp or another by such searches. But the cause of the trouble is the existence of this fanatical, armed minority and they must be weeded out, because the population of Northern Ireland are at their wits' end and at the end of their tether. There is a general air of depression about in Northern Ireland, I think my hon. Friends will agree.
We must deal with those who are responsible for carrying illegal arms. A red herring has been drawn across the debate by references to the shotguns of farmers and the target rifles in rifle clubs. They have very little to do with the problem. These arms have not been used

in any case of which I can think for an attack upon the police or the Army. The areas in which these attacks have happened make this clear.
I believe that the rôle of the Army, where there is a civilianised police force, as a result of the work of Sir Arthur Young, following the Hunt Committee report, where we have no local militia, is to do the job of searching. This job must be done, wherever there is a breach of the peace. The Army must be prepared to go in, preferably with the police, and search for and find both rifles and high explosives, which apparently exist in large quantities in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, in a reply to me on 11th February, said:
During the past 12 months, there have been 572 Beaches of occupied houses. …In this period, 743 lb. of explosive, 8,079 yards of fuse, 2,618 detonators, 282 assorted weapons and approximately 40,000 rounds of ammunition have been found. The number of persons charged with unlawful possession totals 171."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 780.]
When that list can be found in 12 months—that is only the part which is found—one shudders to think how well armed is this disruptive group.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman should be prepared to admit that these arms were found among all sections of the community, and not exclusively one section. Many of the arms, not just the ammunition, were found in the Dungannon area, where extreme Protestants were operating, and not in exclusively Catholic areas. This could be misleading.

Mr. McMaster: That is another clear attempt to mislead the House. I have no doubt that both sides are armed. Indeed, I know that to be a fact. However, one must ask who started it, why it was started and who is continuing it. There is no doubt that the people who are carrying out these attacks and who have organised them in the last 18 months or so are the Republicans and that they are doing it for the clear purpose of reuniting Ireland. This has led to a great deal of frustration among the majority part of the population.
I make no apology for those who have been carrying arms illegally. I hold no brief for anybody who does this. However, I understand their frustration. In


my constituency a few months ago three men were shot dead. The Army did not turn up for three or four hours after the incident and, when the soldiers finally came, guns were going off around them and shots were being fired—not at them but over their heads, as it were—and they did nothing for four more hours. Any person in that street where shots were being fired through the houses, seeing the Army standing by doing nothing, was bound to feel that for the protection of himself and his family he should arm himself lest the same sort of thing happen again.
This is the root cause of the trouble. Though it may be embarrassing to the Home Secretary for searches to be carried out and though searches of this kind may sometimes aggravate the situation, the Army must act in this way and, indeed, search out with more vigour and resolution those who have arms illegally. This must be done to restore peace to Northern Ireland because unless it is done the already bad situation will become worse and the trouble will escalate.
I must refer to two major industries in my part of the world, shipbuilding and aircraft. Both industries are facing considerable troubles and they provide a way for Her Majesty's Government to help Northern Ireland. Harland and Wolff have serious financial problems. This shipyard employs 10,000 men and I need not say much to explain how important employment of this kind is to Northern Ireland, which now has 48,000 unemployed. As has been pointed out, the unemployment figures have been increasing recently and now almost one man in ten is unemployed.
The aircraft industry also has great problems. The naval repair yard is in difficulty and I trust that the Government will consider, both by way of grants to attract new industry and methods to help existing industry to become viable and efficient, this to be a good way to help Northern Ireland. Certain defence work, particularly like naval air repair work, could be directed to Northern Ireland to help us overcome our unemployment problem.
Though this is not the root of the trouble, a high unemployment rate in Northern Ireland cannot help. We cannot

look forward to social reforms and a restoration of a happier life, including improved housing programmes and the rest, unless employment opportunities are increased and money is made available for the economy of Northern Ireland generally.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman support a proposal which I have put forward on many occasions, though I claim no propriety for it, that a quick, indeed instantaneous, injection of capital into the economy of Northern Ireland could be achieved by a doubling of the regional employment premium? This would have an immediate effect, though it would be costly, on labour costs there and inject additional consumer purchasing power.

Mr. McMaster: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has got a good solution, but I would modify it to the extent that the regional employment premium might be graded so that it related to the number of unemployed. The number of unemployed in Northern Ireland is four or five times the national average, and double that in the development areas in the rest of the United Kingdom. As I say, there might be some relationship between the premium and the number of unemployed.

9.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): This has been an excellent debate. I have had the pleasure of listening to all the speeches save the speech, I am sorry to say, of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), but I know that he will forgive me. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) both on his excellent maiden speech and on introducing a subject which has been so well and thoroughly discussed today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) said, some of us felt a little cautious about debating Northern Ireland affairs at present because experience has shown us that debates on this subject at difficult times can lead to trouble. That has not happened at all: as my hon. Friend said, this debate has been particularly marked by the serious way in which it has been conducted and by a total absence of


acrimony on either side. This is rather important in reflecting the seriousness with which this House of Commons regards the British responsibility in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend in his very well reasoned and extremely interesting speech raised two points to which I wish to refer, and which were also taken up by other speakers. The first was the question of greater help from Scotland Yard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) also referred. It is important to get clear what is involved here.
I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it has always been understood that a question of deploying some British uniformed police forces in Northern Ireland is a matter to be discussed with the Federation, because very difficult issues are involved. But what was involved here, as my predecessor described, was a request for technical help for the solving of particular crimes by detectives coming from this country to the aid of detectives operating in Northern Ireland who are already very heavily pressed. I am quite sure that all hon. Members would agree that this was a very sensible and practical thing. It seems totally different from large-scale deployment of uniformed forces, which would involve entirely different issues.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the other point made by my hon. Friend, which was whether security forces should come under the control of Stormont. This question, too, was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and also by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and many other hon. Members. Perhaps I could state once again the position on the responsibility for law and order in Northern Ireland which is, in a way, a difficult and unique situation because of the unique constitutional responsibility of Stormont.
The position is that the Northern Ireland Government are responsible for law and order. The British troops there are acting in support of the civil power, and they are acting under the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and, therefore, of

the Government responsible to this House. So we have in a sense, formally speaking, a dichotomy which cannot he avoided, because the Stormont Parliament has its responsibility as we here have ours.
In practice, however, it works perfectly well because both sides know exactly what their responsibilities are, and because through the machinery of the Joint Security Committee liaison has been established between the Northern Ireland Government, our Government here in London, the police and the Armed Forces, with everyone working together in harmony with the same objective in view, and any attempt to institutionalise things and put one in control of the others would raise constitutional issues in one Parliament or another which would do no good to anyone and might cause considerable confusion.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will my right hon. Friend note that I said that we should work towards this as a solution at some time in the future? I was thinking more of this kind of situation cropping up again. I was not suggesting that this remedy should be applied in this situation.

Mr. Maudling: It was my fault; I must have misunderstood what my hon. Friend was saying. The position is clear; it is a position which subsisted under the previous Administration, and it is a position which must be right for the country in these circumstances.
Many other speeches were made, but I do not think that I can refer to all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) rightly said that a gunman does not win in a secret ballot and that the I.R.A. are trying to sicken British public opinion of the problems of Northern Ireland.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I agree with him entirely that it is a question of establishing the rule of law and respect for the rule of law, and of seeing that justice is not only done but seen to be done. All of us agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point of view on that. It was significant that, though the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is a somewhat controversial figure politically, his speech today was received with great interest on both sides of the House as making a great contribution to


understanding and perhaps solving a problem which is with us all.
I want to comment on the situation as it now appears to me in Northern Ireland. Recent months have seen a number of very significant changes. There has been one noticeable improvement and there have been two definite deteriorations.
The noticeable improvement is the lessening of sectarian tensions. It is quite apparent that tension between the two communities, if that is the right word to use, is certainly far less than it was some months ago. The crowds appearing on the streets when there are riots and disturbances are far smaller than they were. There has been a very marked increase in the common wish of both communities at all levels to get peace established in Northern Ireland. I sense a lessening of the sectarian tension and a definite growth of the common will to find some solution. I believe that this is a genuine improvement which we should recognise and which we must do our best to cherish, because it is still a tender plant.
The first respect in which there has been a deterioration is in the new viciousness and violence and in the sorts of demonstrations which are taking place. The use of weapons of new power and hideousness, the use of nail bombs, and so on, the use of firearms on a growing scale, mark a quite different type of situation and a quite different type of violence from what we were experiencing a few months ago.
The other matter which has been deteriorating is the state of the economy. It was right for many hon. Members to stress the inevitable link between the economic situation and the level of unemployment with the difficulty of establishing peace and order in Northern Ireland.
The reason for the improvement in the relations between the two communities certainly lies in the development of the reform programme. I stress once again with all the power at my command how much the Government support this programme, how much we want to see it carried through, as we know that it will be carried through, fully and rapidly, and how much we think that it is contributing to a lasting solution of the Northern Ireland problem.
As the House knows, there has been a fundamental reconstruction of the police force on the lines of the recommendation of the Hunt Committee. This job was done extremely well by Sir Arthur Young, as the House will certainly recognise. A police authority has been created which represents the community as a whole. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about the particular authority and what it is doing.
The housing legislation has gone through the Stormont House of Commons and is now before the Senate. This will surely create in housing a new situation and one where the discrimination charge will have been removed.
Major Chichester-Clark has made it quite clear that his Government intend to introduce reform of local government following closely on the Macrory Report.
As many hon. Members have said, much work has been done on the question of redress of grievance, and the report of the Commissioner shows quite clearly that, though there are a large number of complaints received, the level of administration in Northern Ireland has been very commendable indeed. Therefore, I think we are entitled in this House to take note of the progress of the reform programme, to give it our full and continuing support and to recognise, as I am certain the leaders of both communities in Northern Ireland recognise, that when this programme has been completed the old grievances of discrimination and all these important matters will have been eliminated. It is very important indeed to stress that.
Of course, it is deeply disappointing that despite the movement forward of the reform programme, we have now been cast back in the last few weeks into this turbulence and violence once again, particularly on the streets of Belfast. Surely it may be the fact that there is a linkage between these two things. Because the reform programme was going ahead, because there was more peace and quiet in Belfast, so the people whose tool of trade is violence felt that they were compelled to start a new campaign of violence in order to achieve the objectives which they have so long cherished. Of course, it is right to say, as has been stressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and others, that in Northern Ireland


violence does not come only from one side. Extremists exist on both sides—indeed, on many sides—and there are men in many parts of the community there who do not shrink from using violent means to promote their own political ends. This is the tragedy of the country.
It is also clear that most of the trouble in recent weeks has been the work of the extreme provisional wing of the I.R.A. I do not think anybody would dispute that. The Provisional Army Council, the so-called Brady Group, the extreme men of the I.R.A., are at the back of these recent developments. They are the men who have adopted the despicable tactics of using crowds and even young children for promoting their own ends. Nobody in any community in Northern Ireland would support the sort of tactics and methods that these men employ. Many people may share their political ideas; many people may wish to see a united Ireland; many people may be Republicans, but very few people, I am sure, have any respect or any regard or sympathy or any support for these men who are perpetrating their deeds of violence for the sake of these political objectives.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford): May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the force with which he is making this point about the violence being the work of minorities and the two communities in Northern Ireland being hostile to it, since there is an impression created in British public opinion that the reform programme has failed in Northern Ireland because of this violence, whereas, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the answer may be quite different. It is extremely important to get this point over to the public.

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is the point. The success of the reform programme has provoked acts of violence by these extremists who are very small in number but who are a very dangerous group of men. The problem, therefore, is how to deal with this new manifestation. It is a wholly new problem for the British security forces to face. It is quite different and it is quite strange.
The other problem is how to deal with these new manifestations without appar-

ently rebuffing or victimising the Catholic community as a whole. Because the I.R.A. extremists operate in Catholic areas and because they have been dealt with in the areas within which they operate, there is a terrible danger that it may appear that the Army and security forces are operating not against the I.R.A. but against the minority. It is important to make the situation clear. I appreciate what has been said by many hon. Members about the task facing our soldiers now in Belfast. I find it difficult to imagine how a young lad in his late teens in the Army feels, having thought that he was going to fight the foreign enemies of Britain and finding himself in the streets of Belfast where death comes from a bullet out of the darkness, with the street lamps illuminated amongst people whom he thought were his own countrymen. It must be a baffling, be-wildering tragic situation for a young man. The bearing, dignity and restraint which our forces have shown in that situation is remarkable, a situation which both sides of the House acknowledge is not one for which our forces have been trained or could have been trained.
There is a lot in what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said about the rapid turnover. There is a difficulty about retaining people too long in that situation. We recognise the importance of maintaining continuity where possible, for a lack of knowledge of local conditions must be one of the greatest handicaps facing the security forces there. I think that the close liaison now established between the Constabulary and the Army has done a good deal to overcome this, but clearly it is a real difficulty.
Then there is the difficulty of search. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, if one searches a house, one has to look under the floorboards because, otherwise, one has not searched. If one searches indiscriminately over a wide area, one does, of course, arouse great antipathy among the people there. One understands that. But where there is evidence that there are arms in a particular area, where information comes that there are arms in a certain area, or where bullets come from that area when soldiers are on patrol, it is the Army's job to go and search. This is the policy which the Army is following. It is not carrying


out indiscriminate searches but, rightly, following it up where there is real hard evidence either of bullets or of information that illegal arms are being cached and should be recovered.
In this situation, where the problem is to deal with extreme violence without offending the community within which this tiny core of violence resides, the main essential is to make it absolutely clear that violence will not succeed. I hope that I do not sound pessimistic, but, in face of this deep and difficult problem, I believe that we shall only see a withering away of support for these men of violence when it is quite apparent that they will not win. Any indication at any time that violence may be making progress will merely add to their appetite, and add to their prestige and chances of success.
The purpose of these men, the extremists, who are pursuing these tactics is one which politically we could not accept. Successive Governments have committed themselves time and again, as has the House itself, to the principle that there will be no change in the Border without the agreement of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I repeat that again today. There can be no political solution with men whose political objective we cannot possibly accept. We must make clear that the law will be enforced.
What I fear may be in the minds of many in the Provisional I.R.A. is the thought, if they go on long enough causing the sort of difficulties which they are causing now, the British public will become sick and tired of the whole thing. Undoubtedly, it will be an easy temptation for people here to say, "Let them get on with it. Why should we send our soldiers from Newcastle, from Yeovil or from London to be shot at in this way in the streets of Belfast while trying to keep apart two communities who cannot learn to live together in peace?". That is what people will say increasingly, but it must be absolutely resisted. No Government could possibly resile from the fundamental responsibility of the British Government and the House of Commons to maintain law and order and to carry out our pledges to the people of Northern Ireland.
We must stand absolutely firm in these matters. Obviously, at the same time we

must do all we can to try to ameliorate the situation, to try to bring people together, to try to encourage people to work together and to eradicate suspicions.
There is the question of arms legally held in private hands. Major Chichester-Clark has just announced a review of all legally held firearms to see that the Government are sure that all these are justified and, where possible, to cut this down. I think that this is a matter which should be followed up, and I agree that the question of rifle clubs needs looking into, too. The legal holding of firearms in the conditions of Northern Ireland needs to be very fully justified. This is one of the steps which must be taken.
There are many other aims towards which we must strive. We must try to get more participation by the minority community in organs of Government like the police authority and the other bodies which are being set up. All this, I know, Major Chichester-Clark fully accepts, and he will certainly have the complete support of this Government in pursuing them.
Now, the economic problem.

Mr. Pounder: Before coming to matters of economics, will my right hon. Friend say what evidence he has of arms coming into an area, being suddenly used, and then being taken out again very quickly? The road block is a fairly effective weapon against this sort of thing, but is there much evidence that arms are coming in, being used, and then being taken out in that way?

Mr. Maudling: There is no doubt that pretty large quantities of arms move around, across the Border one way and another. I should not like to disclose what information I have. We do our best to get all the information we can. The quantities involved are considerable.
The economic picture has grown more difficult. I do not want to enter into a general argument on economic policy, but the particular problems of Northern Ireland, with the decline in employment in linen and shipbuilding and the movement off the land, have been aggravated very much recently. Certainly, the Rolls-Royce development is creating new problems for employment there.
I think that we can claim to have done a good deal in the past six months to assist in the economic development of


Northern Ireland. One of the first things I did when I became Home Secretary was to take over from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East the very good £75 million development programme for Northern Ireland, which he and his Government had developed. I remember getting in touch with the late lain Macleod, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think in my first communication with him in that office, and asking whether he would agree to the programme going ahead, he replied, "Certainly," without any hesitation. We have carried on this very necessary programme.
We have recently been having discussions with the Government of Northern Ireland about the whole question of inducements and incentives to investment in Northern Ireland. They will be making an announcement on this in the fairly near future. I hope that they will feel that the discussions have been of value. We think that they have been useful and effective.
The message I must give to the House at the end of an extremely valuable debate is that the problem has been there for so many centuries that it is crazy to think that we can solve it in the course of a few years. What we need above all is patience and complete determination to preserve law and order against those who are threatening it, recognising that the threat comes from a tiny but very dangerous minority. We need complete determination to maintain law and order and the obligations of this House, coupled with the same determination to support the Government of Northern Ireland in the programme of reform which they have instituted, which they are carrying through, and which we believe will, when completed, have removed all the old discriminatory arguments and grievances that undoubtedly existed. Patience will be needed in abundance.
I can only conclude with what I think Sir Winston Churchill once said at the end of one of his speeches: "Above all, never flinch, never weary, never despair."

Orders of the Day — NURSES (PAY AND CONDITIONS)

9.38 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the need to improve the status, conditions of employment and rates of remuneration of nurses in the National Health Service.
I have listened to a great deal of the debate on Northern Ireland, and I agree that it was a very responsible debate. But, despite its seriousness, it showed the vulgarity, bigotry, violence and intolerance which exists in part of our land and which is a mark of insanity. Now the House is to go on to discuss the conditions of work of the nurses in our land, which is the hallmark of sanity.
I should like first to pay my regards to Kenneth Robinson, who, when he was Minister of Health not so very long ago, made such an ample contribution not only to the National Health Service but to increasing the status and remuneration of nurses in it. I should also like to express my respect to and appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who also made a very powerful contribution during the similar debate on 27th January last year.
When the House debates the conditions and remuneration of nurses, something usually happens which, if it does not answer all our points, certainly makes a contribution towards answering them. There have certainly been considerable improvements in the not-so-distant past, but the position is still far from satisfactory.
I should like to outline how I shall present the case. First, I want to show the rôle and the complicated responsibilities of various kinds of nurses in the National Health Service and what is required of those nurses in the performance of their many duties. I shall then review what I consider to be some of the grievous defects in the terms of engagement of nurses in the National Health Service, which I consider to be a mean reflection of their status and remuneration.
In its advocacy on behalf of nurses in the National Health Service, the national Press has done a splendid job. In my researches during the weekend, I have


discovered that quite a number of our national papers and magazines have not let the case of the National Health Service nurse go by default. I would mention in particular articles which have appeared in the Scotsman, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the New Statesman, The Times and the Guardian. If the Press in general and back-bench Members, on both sides of the House, maintain our campaign—and I have referred to the remarkable debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West on the Consolidated Fund Bill a year ago—supported by subsequent Questions to Ministers across the Floor of the House and, I hope, this debate tonight, I think that the final result will be another march forward in improving the conditions of nurses in the National Health Service.
When we use the term "nurses" generally, we sometimes do not appreciate the complex and complicated situation that is involved when we talk of a young man or woman becoming a nurse. I should like to deal first with the young State-registered nurse and the State-enrolled nurse in the National Health Service. To become a State-registered nurse involves a three-year course leading to very high qualifications, which are tested by examination, both written and practical. I know from family experience that this creates a great strain on a young woman who desires to achieve the accolade of becoming a State-registered nurse. When, however, one looks at the financial results which accrue from all this, one wonders why she does it.
Even for State-enrolled nurses there is a two-year course. Like State-registered nurses, not only have they to do their work as a student nurse or as a pupil nurse; if they wish to pass their examinations, they also have to spend a great deal of what might be called their free time in studying for their examinations.
When nurses take their State finals, which are thorough and exhaustive examinations, they are at remuneration levels which are lower than in any other form of industry or profession or, indeed, in the Services. They simply would not be tolerated by soldiers, sailors or men and women in industry or in other professions. I wonder whether it is because of the vocational instinct in the young

man or woman who enrols to become a nurse that we in society are, perhaps, guilty of taking advantage of their vocational inspiration.
After three years a student nurse, if she is successful in her examination, at which she is allowed a number of attempts, ultimately becomes a State-registered nurse. Then she is automatically a staff nurse. That can lead her to want to become a district nurse in local government but, before doing so, there are certain health visitor courses that have to be taken. Alternatively, a State-registered nurse with three years' experience can move on to become a sister. But the point is that, during all this advancement, our nurses have to accept many serious responsibilities whilst they are studying and, even when they become State-registered nurses or sisters, they have not a great deal to show for it in terms of remuneration.
Having qualified as a State-registered nurse, it may be that she wishes to become a State-certified midwife. Having gone through the three-year course of a student nurse, having qualified as a State-registered nurse and got a little more pay, she then decides to study with a view to becoming a State-certified midwife. To do so, she has to undergo yet another course of study. She must take examinations and pass Parts I and II. However, while she is doing it she must revert to the level of remuneration that she received as a student nurse. This is a thoroughly disgraceful state of affairs and one to which I hope that the Minister will give serious attention.
In addition, the State-registered nurse who decides to take a course with a view to becoming a State-certified midwife has physically to help in the delivery of babies. I suggest that that is a very real responsibility. Any hon. Gentleman whose wife was having a baby would want to be assured that the midwife attending her had all the qualifications. There cannot be any margin for error. That being so, it is disgraceful that a State-registered nurse wishing to become a State-certified midwife should have to suffer a loss in pay as a result.
In addition to State-registered nurses, there are registered mental nurses, registered nurses for the mentally sub-normal, registered sick and children's nurses and so on. Their very names should evoke


the praise and recognition that the nation owes them.
The modern nurse has to know infinitely more about her profession than did her predecessor just after the war and certainly before it. The medical and psychological knowledge and the other high qualifications of our State-registered nurses are of the utmost importance to the doctors and surgeons with whom they work, not to mention the patients and relatives of patients with whom they have to deal.
Do hon. Members appreciate that a modern sister is responsible for the total administration of the ward in her charge? There is no margin for error in hospital work. She must have a complete and efficient liaison with doctors, consultants and hospital authorities as well as with patients and their relatives. Ward sisters are called upon to make the most onerous decisions, sometimes involving resuscitation. In short, our sisters and staff nurses have to make almost instant decisions involving life and death.
I wonder whether the House realises that a nursing officer, for example, may be responsible for nursing administration in some 20 hospitals. Do hon. Members appreciate the enormous amount of knowledge and responsibility of a modern matron? Modern matrons, I am glad to say, are much more tolerant, sensible and understanding than some of the matrons of past years, although that is not a criticism of those in the past, but means simply that modern matrons have to meet the needs of modern society, to understand the desires and aspirations of modern patients, and nurses and other medical staff. The matron of a hospital is at least on a par with a banker or a tycoon. The only difference is that she does not receive anything like their remuneration.
The main responsibility of guiding the nursing service rests with the General Nursing Council and its committees. It performs an extremely important function. It is responsible for channelling Ministry finance to schools for nursing, for inspecting them, for arranging examination syllabuses and for organising courses. Any teaching hospital's experimental course has to be examined by the Council.
I gather from its reports that the Council is always trying to adopt what

it regards as the right approach on an inadequate budget. At the same time, I think that it should become a little stronger in pressing its claims for the nurses. I have to criticise some aspects of this work. It is responsible for what seem to me to be the absurd penalties imposed on young women who enter nursing.
I was distressed to read in its annual report dated 25th July, 1969, that the fall in the number of student nurses entering training had continued. The fall was not as great as in preceding years, however. From 1969 to 1970, the number entering training fell from 51,225 to 49.298. We must not ignore these figures. They may not seem dramatic, but the loss of every potential nurse is serious. We are building more hospitals and therefore there are more wards and therefore more people able to enter hospitals, and the irony and agony of it all is that the number of nurses is not commensurate with that situation.
The qualifications of nurses generally are the responsibility of the Royal College of Nurses and the Royal College of Midwives. It seems that because these organisations have to be efficient, because their members must always show the highest understanding and compassion, somehow or other they must never press too vigorously for the legitimate rewards of nursing. I hope that they will drop this attitude and adopt a more dynamic approach in advancing the cause of the modern nurse.
Those of us who like to think that we are concerned about nurses often hear of a nurse who has been working different shifts in different wards. One week she will be in the surgical ward, then the children's ward, then the geriatric ward, then the gynaecology ward, then the obstetric ward, then the ear-nose-andthroat ward, the orthopaedic ward, casualty, out-patients and so on. A nurse must have the ability to switch to any of these wards at a moment's notice. She has to have extra and expert knowledge.
The pay and conditions in the service are insufficient. I acknowledge that they are determined by the negotiating machinery of the two sides of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. I sometimes wish that that Council would examine the way in which the Civil Service Whitley Council operates. While


this latter never seems to get any great headlines, it has achieved a very great deal for its members, and I wish that those representing nurses and midwives would take a leaf out of that Council's book.
One problem might be that the nurses are represented by 12 different groups, and this could easily weaken their bargaining power. I hope that the Minister will encourage nursing organisations to overhaul their machinery, to see whether they cannot evolve one national system, possibly under the National Union of Public Employees, so that they make their representations with one united voice. While the Whitley Council has not achieved great success, it has achieved a little, but not enough to raise the status of the modern nurse.
I sometimes think that there might be a need for a Select Committee of this House to examine the situation. If we have to wait for the administrative machine to get going, one of the things that the Minister could do immediately, which would improve the status of the nurse, is to help recruitment by abolishing the payment for food and accommodation and to give an extra and generous allowance to all our nurses, State-registered and State-enrolled, who have the initiative to find their own accommodation. They should not be penalised for so doing. This alone could make a contribution and help recruitment. Further, once a State-registered nurse endeavours to improve her status, she should not automatically suffer a drop in remuneration. She can be almost devalued becauses he wishes to become a State-registered midwife in addition to being a State-registered nurse—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Mr. Speaker King's Retirement may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed—[Mr.Whitelaw.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — NURSES (PAY AND CONDITIONS)

Mr. Molloy: We all agree that the modern nurse is a highly skilled and highly qualified young woman. But I regret to say that she is a source of very cheap labour for the National Health Service. This is a disgrace and we should do something about it. We should not have to await the outcome of examination to implement some of the recommendations which I have made. If we do not do something to increase the status of nurses, the situation in which people in hospital were not properly attended to and nursed would soon snowball and there would be national anguish, and then the House and the Minister would have to do something about it. All I ask is that something be done now.
The nurses have been singled out for special praise, to which they are entitled. In the not-too-distant past, they were singled out for detrimental treatment. I am glad to say that that situation has been remedied, but not with the speed with which I should have liked. In discussing the improvement of the status and remuneration of nurses in the National Health Serevice, we are talking about the future not only of that service but of the nation.
I have already said that the conditions of employment of nurses in the National Health Service would not be tolerated in industry. I wonder how many trade unions and employers' organisations would even dream of sitting down to discuss an 84-hour fortnight with no meat breaks. Yet that is the situation in the nursing service. I wonder how many would even talk of extra duty allowances and overtime rates with 11-hour shifts? Is it right and proper in such an important profession that it should be possible for a young nurse, working in numerous wards over a relatively short period, to work eleven hours at a stretch? This is wrong.
The other great paradox is this: when it comes to sick leave or sick leave allowance, the nurse today is not as well off as nurses were in 1950. If their allowances and sick leave were put on the agenda


for discussion in any of our major industries, they would be laughed out of court.
The General Nursing Council should have a hard look at humanising and dignifying its nurses' rules. A much more intelligent discipline should be applied commensurate with the status of the nurse. She should not be treated, as nurses are sometimes treated, as a form of private in somebody's army. This attitude must go. Nurses must have high qualifications. The responsibility of their job is always impressed on them. Yet they suffer mean, pettifogging penalties which would not be tolerated in any other industry or profession.
Therefore, I would ask the Minister to look at this and, with the General Nursing Council, to take out the built-in penalties arising, for example, from examinations. Let me explain what I mean. I think that the student nurse can sit her State examination only three times in any one year. She may fail or she may pass the first time, but because the examination takes place at only set times— in the year, the student nurse can suffer financially. I should have thought it not an impossibility that the General Nursing Council and the Ministry could come to some other sensible arrangement.
In passing, I ask hon. Members on the back benches to be on the qui vive when certain Statutory Instruments are put on the Table of the House. I regret to say that I have not always had my eyes open as I ought to have done, and I am willing to admit it, but I hope that I shall not be as negligent in the future, and, therefore, I give this warning to the G.N.C. and the Ministry, that I hope to whip up enthusiasm in the House for looking at Statutory Instruments so that if they do not satisfy the reasonable conditions which I have adumbrated here this evening, we shall move Prayers against them.
The agony is this, and it is another paradox: nurses, certainly until recently, were the victims of the adage that silent pain evokes no response. If in the past they had been militant, if in the past they had threatened some form of action, no doubt they would have been attacked at that time, but I am absolutely convinced that they would have improved their status and their terms of remuneration. Because they have shown an

exemplary form of responsibility and devotion to duty, they have received only punishment for it, because the quality and value of the nurses in the National Health Service have never, in my view, been truly appreciated.
It is only when someone near to us, whether we are Members of the House or of the general public outside, has to go to hospital that we appreciate the work the nurses do. A child is knocked down in the road—there is the scream of brakes; the clanging of the ambulance bell; the child taken into hospital; the parents informed: and when they get there they see what is being done, they see the tenderness of these young girls working with the surgeons and with the doctors, and, of course, they are—and quite rightly—full of praise for our National Health Service nurses. The agony of that situation is that far too often we do not arrive at the frontiers of understanding until our own souls are tortured with personal grief. I say—and I think that the nation would agree —that we do not wish to recognise the value of the nurses in our hospital system until we have to visit a loved one in hospital. Then we become acquainted with the true value of the nurses. That, at the moment, is not being adequately recognised.
The agony in many cases is that the nation has a Jekyll-and-Hyde attitude. It is proud of so much that we do in our welfare services. At the same time it jibs at having to pay for it. However, I believe that the nation would not adopt that attitude towards a radical improvement in the status and remuneration of our nurses. Our National Health Service is the envy of the world. It is the signpost to sanity. The nurses, all grades of them, who work in the National Health Service are a vital link in that remarkable and wonderful National Health Service. If a chain is as strong as its weakest link, it is possible for our National Health Service to crumble because we have ignored the value and the true importance of its nurses.
If preventable pain is a blot on our society, preventable injustice to our nurses is a great and degrading blot as well. If we enhance the status of our nurses through better pay and conditions of service, and thereby recognise their true worth, it will reflect throughout the


National Health Service and ultimately throughout the nation. To improve the texture of our national life and, in the final account, to improve the British National Health Service, we should start immediately to improve the status and the remuneration of all nurses in that service. In our National Health Service, we have made a vital contribution to the establishment of the civilised society.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West): The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for raising this subject, which touches the heart of every member of the community. I must confess that I was rather embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, when I saw you take the Chair just five minutes before I rose to speak, although I anticipated that this might occur, when you were called to the Chair a short while ago, because you will recollect that you were the Chancellor of the Exchequer when nurses' pay was frozen. They were told then that the economy was in such a parlous state that they could not have more than a 2½ per cent. increase.
Their pay has got a little better since, but not very much, and certainly not as much as these young women are entitled to. I wish that, when patients go into hospital, instead of handing the nurses, as they sometimes do, a box of chocolates or a nice letter of thanks, they would take the trouble to ask the nurses who are nursing their relatives and friends what they are getting in wages. Every patient would be appalled at the exploitation which still goes on in every hospital in Britain.
I had in my house last night three nurses, one of them my daughter and the other two friends of my son. I have a very close relationship with the nursing profession. When I was up in my constituency at the weekend, a radiographer came to see me. She was five years fully trained and she is getting about £20 a week. She thought that she was very well paid—and so she was, in terms of the remuneration received by some of the girls who are trudging around the wards every day and night.
All patients would accept, I think, that, however much we mechanise the adminis-

trative procedures and other parts of the hospital service, there will always be this very important therapeutic element, the human element of the nurse on the ward. We must pay for it, as my hon. Friend has insisted.
Despite the record of the former Minister of Health, Kenneth Robinson, and despite the efforts of the last Government under extremely difficult economic circumstances, nurses remain one of the most, if not the most, scandalously under-paid professions in the land—in terms not only of pay but of conditions of service.
My hon. Friend referred to the old battle-axes who were in the hospitals in days gone by. I regret to say that some of them are still there. If one asks nurses on the wards about this, one will readily be told of some of the intolerable discipline with which they must put up—being treated like mature women one moment and precocious schoolgirls the next. It is intolerable for youngsters to be treated in this way.
It makes me sick at heart when I think of the enormous wage claims that have been coming in—I refer to figures ranging from 10 per cent. to 60 per cent.—for top civil servants and judges. Indeed, there is a Motion on the Notice Paper for the former Speaker to receive a pension of £5,000 a year. We must get our priorities right, and I say that without disrespect to the former Speaker, Dr. Horace King, who is one of my best friends. When we compare these figures with the remuneration given to our nurses, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about overtime rates. There is not a trade which would tolerate what we give our nurses, which often amounts to something like one penny an hour. They work through public holidays and at weekends, often with no additional remuneration. Only this afternoon the Secretary of State for Employment claimed a great success in that the Wilber-force Committee had managed to prevent the electricity workers from getting more than 10·9 per cent.
If only the Under-Secretary would reply to this debate by saying, "We intend to give the nurses a rise of 10·9 per cent. every year between now and


1975", that would not be an extravagant promise. Unfortunately, he will not say that, because these girls either cannot or will not strike.
This contrasts with the doctors, who threatened to strike. I recall the debate to which my hon. Friend referred, which I initiated mainly to ask the then Minister if he would withdraw from the doctors some of their pay because they were in breach of their contract by refusing to sign sickness certificates. He replied, in effect, "Let us forget about that. That is water under the bridge." The Conservatives said at the last election that the Socialists should have given the doctors their 30 per cent. Now hon. Gentlemen opposite are giving them 20 per cent.
The doctors have never prayed in aid of the nurses. Never have I heard a doctor say, "The nurses are grossly underpaid", though I have regularly heard them complain of their hardship and of how they require an additional 30 per cent. They will get it, too, even though it will be in stages. Why should we accept in silence the treatment that is being meted out to our nurses?
One may blame the nurses for not having organised themselves into a satisfactory body to represent them. Many of them go into the nursing profession and leave after two or three years to get married. They say, "What is the use of joining a trade union?" and, in any event, the Under-Secretary will no doubt reply to this debate by saying that the nurses have the machinery of the Whitley Council, that they have a pay claim in and that he cannot comment on the subject. The Whitley Council machinery is useless and hopeless and it could be scrapped without the nurses even missing it. Every nurse to whom I have spoken has criticised the Whitley Council for refusing, for whatever reason, to take up their case.

Mr. Molloy: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a grave absurdity in a situation in which a nurse, having been trained under the N.H.S., becomes an agency nurse and earns more money in that way; and that the N.H.S. often has to employ these agency nurses, which costs the service much more than would the proper remunerating of its own nurses?

Mr. Hamilton: That is true. When that point was raised in a recent debate on the subject the Government answered that only a tiny fraction of the total nurses in the service were agency nurses. I was almost about to say that all the nurses in the Health Service should go to the agencies. If they cannot get correct remuneration agreed to by the House they could take that alternative. I should not like to see it done. The House should accept its responsibilities. It will not be good enough for me if the Under-Secretary tonight says, "Leave all this to the Whitley Council. The claim is in, and the Whitley Council will sort it out". This Government, like the previous Government, have initiatives that they can exercise.
I refer now to the State-registered nurse who subsequently decides to train as a certified midwife. My son's girl friend happens to be in exactly that position. She is just finishing the six months' course for Part I, and she has to pay four guineas to sit the examination. When I raised this point with the Department, I was told, "Well, the body that runs the examination has to cover administrative costs, so these girls have to pay". That is not good enough. The Department should either pay these girls adequately so as to enable them to pay the fee or should itself accept that responsibility.
The Government are committed to cutting public expenditure. Far more cuts are threatened than have ever been threatened hitherto. In Table 1.2, page 8 of Cmnd. 4578, we find public expenditure on health and welfare estimated at £2,055 million in 1969–70 rising to £2,645 million in 1974–75—an annual percentage increase of 4·7. I do not know the breakdown of that figure, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what part of that total is projected increases in nurses' salaries. We know that there is a very ambitious hospital building programme already in train. How much of this increase in projected expenditure is for capital expenditure, how much is for current expenditure, and how much, particularly, is for nurses' pay?
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of a Select Committee of the House to look into the problem. He will know, as I do, that we have now got a new Select Committee on Expenditure.


and one of its sub-committees is to deal with the social services. It is not for me to say what it is likely to investigate, but I hope that my hon. Friend will ask the Chairman to make a top priority of salaries and conditions of nurses, because if this problem is not dealt with soon the National Health Service will not come to a stop but its future will be very seriously jeopardised.
My hon. Friend, others of my hon. Friends and myself will keep raising this matter in the House, because the nurses have no spokesman other than us on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept from us that he will continue to receive our criticism—not he personally, but the Department which is responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

10.25 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill (Halifax): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for a most eloquent and knowledgeable appeal on behalf of the nurses. It is regrettable that there are so few Members present to hear the debate. Most of the sentiments expressed and facts stated by my hon. Friend give a clear and accurate account of the way that nurses are paid, of their status and of their employment conditions.
No mention has been made of Professor Briggs's Committee which is inquiring into the future rôle, education and training of nurses, particularly the future rôle, which is a broad phrase which presumably could be taken to cover many of the aspects which have been brought up tonight.
I should not like to think that the Government are simply waiting for this Committee to report. We were told originally that it was a Committee which would take 18 months to deliberate, which seems a long time in view of the urgency of the whole matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when Professor Briggs's Committee will report.
There is no doubt that there are serious shortages of nurses, particularly in geriatric wards and in wards for the mentally sick. It is a tragic fact that a third of nurses leave during their training. A study should be made of why girls are sufficiently enthusiastic to take up nursing—something in it appeals to them—and then leave during their training, perhaps to take up another job, often to go abroad.
Tragically, there are nurses who go abroad when they have qualified because the remuneration and the conditions of work there are more attractive to them. Many nurses go into the agency service. It is surprising that more do not do so in view of the higher remuneration and the more attractive uniform and conditions of work for agency nurses.
There is always the lure of office work or attractive highly paid secretarial jobs for young girls where the hours are nine to five and the girl is off in the evening and the pay is much higher.
There is an advertisement for nursing issued by the Department of Health and Social Security which is entitled
You are someone special when you are a nurse".
It is clear that nurses are special, in that they are peculiarly dedicated young women. They are prepared to do hard work for low wages, with excessive hours, and at the same time carry a load of responsibility, unlike any responsibility they might have if they were sitting in an office.
Recruitment, although the Minister will say that it is rising, is not keeping pace with the demand. Nurses are still unable to prevent the frequent closure of wards and delays in hospital admissions, with waiting lists piling up. I am glad that there has been some improvement in the recruitment or the employment of part-time married nurses. I think most hospitals now realise that they could not run without part-time married nurses, but I feel that there is much more that could still be done in this direction, particularly in casualty wards. Discipline, I think, is becoming more realistic because it is quite an antiquated idea that a nurse should perhaps be in charge of a ward of 35 people one minute and then be required to report back to the nurses' home at 10.30 on the dot or else be punished.
Home nursing has not yet been mentioned, but obviously in the future there will be a far greater tendency for patients to stay a shorter time in hospital, particularly midwifery patients, but patients of all kinds—geriatric and so on—and to he returned to their homes as soon as possible. Therefore, the demand for home nurses, who are in short supply and under-paid at the moment, will be greater than ever before. We cannot attract more nurses to hospitals as long as the hospitals themselves are old and overcrowded and offer poor working conditions. It is very noticeable that the big London teaching hospitals or the newer hospitals do not suffer from a shortage of nurses. Many of them have a waiting list of nurses wanting to go in. It is the old, often provincial ones, which have this terrible problem.
We have heard a great deal in this debate about pay. I would point out that although this is not a party political


debate, between July, 1964, and April, 1970, nurses' pay increased by 67 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that the Whitley Council, certainly the whole negotiating machinery, is the subject of great criticism among the nursing profession. Clearly it does not look as if Professor Briggs's inquiry will cover that at all, and that some other inquiry will have to be set up to look into it.
We find as a result of the Whitley Council that by April, 1971, a staff nurse in a general hospital, who is a highly trained young woman, intelligent and hard working. will be paid only £23 a week gross. This, as has been pointed out in a previous debate, is less than the average earning of a male manual worker over 21 in a manufacturing industry. At the same time, under this new machinery, in April this year, a ward sister, who is highly experienced and with great responsibility in matters of life and death, will earn only £30 a week, and this after years and years in hospital work.
It is clear that the National Health Service, which we know is short of money, is being subsidised by nurses who are being exploited for their cheap labour. It is well known, as has already been said tonight, that nurses will not strike. They are dedicated and they would never think of abandoning sick patients in order to appeal for more money. But they do come into the category of the low paid, and successive Governments have always said that whatever their incomes policy, or lack of it, the low paid will be taken care of.
Unfortunately nurses are split, or have been recently, into the militants and the conformists. There have, indeed, been some nurses who have been prepared to take militant action, but then again there were others who disapproved of this, and this split their case. They are divided into a multitude of unions. They have 12 different groups representing them on the Whitley Council. We all know that the greater strength is in unity, and they sadly appear to be disunited when it comes to claiming for their own pockets. Yet, on the other hand, they have almost unanimous and total public support whenever they put in a claim. I should not think there are many Mem-

bers of this House or members of the public who have not some reason to be grateful to the nursing profession. They probably get more public and Press support than any other section of the community. Perhaps it is because they are paid out of taxation that there is a reluctance on the part of Governments to deal with the situation.
Another reason why they are paid at a lower rate by successive Governments may be that, although there are male nurses, on the whole it is predominantly a woman's profession, and there is a long-standing belief and prejudice that a woman's job deserves a woman's rate of pay, and therefore the general rate is always kept fairly low. I am very sympathetic with the male nurses who have a family to keep on what is always called a woman's wage. I hope that with the Equal Pay Act now on the Statute Book, and with a general feeling among the public that there should be the rate for the job, nursing will not simply receive a woman's rate of pay, and that the profession will be paid according to the type of work, the training required and that responsibility and experience that these women have.
It is no good the Government's boast-ting, as they can, that they ere putting more money into hospital buildings. A patient's welfare depends more on the doctors and nurses caring for him or her than on expensive machines and modern buildings.
I am sure that the House expects that the Government, whether as a result of Professor Brigg's Committee, whenever that will report, or through the Whitley Council, but not very hopefully through the Whitley Council, or some other machinery, will see that at long last the nurses are given their due and receive a proper rate for the job.

10.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Socal Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has raised an important topic that unfailingly plucks the heart strings, as well as the head strings, of every Member—the problems, remuneration, status and conditions of work of the nursing profession.
I should like to start by paying my tribute to this great profession. Most


people receive nursing attention at least twice in their lives, the first time being when they are in their mothers' arms. We all qualify for that, and it is a very rare human being who does not receive nursing at a subsequent stage. There are two deeply implanted instincts in the typical nurse, who has a marvellous desire to help the human being at its most dependent. As one who is temporarily fit and healthy, I fully recognise the absolutely indispensable rôle that the nurse plays in not only the National Health Service but the whole continuing life of the community.
I noted in the contributions by the hon. Members for Ealing, North Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) that all have a personal link with the nursing profession. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is one example of the doctor who refutes the contention of the hon. Member for Fife, West—a doctor who is saying something on behalf of nurses and their pay.

Mr. William Hamilton: That is an exception.

Mr. Alison: An exception, perhaps, but a very attractive and powerful one.
I am afraid that I shall confirm the hon. Member for Fife, West in his act of prophetic insight. The pay of nurses is, alas, a topic of current interest in the strictest sense of that word, since a claim has been made for increased rates of pay and improved conditions to date from 1st April, 1971. As the hon. Member and the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax know, the claim is at present the subject of negotiation on the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. There is very little that I can say, since it would not be right or helpful for me to comment whilst those negotiations are still in train. There have been two meetings and there is to be another on 23rd February. It would even be unhelpful for me to be drawn into a broad discussion of whether the Whitley machinery is adequate for the purposes for which it was designed, because this would be bound to have repercussions on the meetings which are in train.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, however, that there will not be a freeze of 2½ per cent. on the nurses' increase?

Mr. Alison: That is obviously relevant to the negotiations which are in progress.

Both parties have experience of pay freezes and I do not think that it is for me to comment on the desirability of projecting that into the future. However, I think that all of us who have had experience of pay freezes know how unsatisfactory they are. Apart from that, I must not stray into the area which is strictly within the purview of the negotiations which are still in train.
On finance, the hon. Member for Fife, West touched on Table 1.2 on page 8 of the latest Government public expenditure forecast. Again, I ask him to excuse me from giving a precise answer, which might mislead him because I have not had notice of it, but I will write to him about it. I think he will find that the contingency item in most of the forward tables has amongst some of its purposes the possibility of increased rates of pay or increased costs which arise.
The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax spoke about the Asa Briggs Committee. I hope that I may be allowed to say something about that Committee, because it is so obviously relevant to the wider issues which the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Ealing, North has raised. Perhaps I may remind the House of the terms of reference of the Asa Briggs Committee. They are:
To review the rôle of the nurse and the midwife in the hospital and the community and the education and training required for that rôle, so that the best use is made of available manpower to meet present needs and the needs of an integrated health service".
The House will know that the membership of the Briggs Committee covers a wide range of experience and interests. Over half the numbers of the Committee are nurses, including two ward sisters, who will be able to bring to bear a great deal of practical knowledge about the problems of the profession at ward level and what might be described as the grass roots feelings on the whole range of topics, not least discipline, to which hon. Members have referred, as they look into their terms of reference.
The present Government fully endorse the decision of the last Government to set up that Committee, whose work is undoubtedly of considerable importance, both for the future of the nursing profession and, because of that, for the future of the whole Health Service. The Committee has certainly aroused a great deal


of interest and there has been a lot of ready co-operation with its work. It will, however, have a formidable body of evidence to consider, because a great deal of it is flowing in from the large number of interested parties in the inquiry. The Committee is making good progress, but it has a lot of work to do and, obviously, it will be some time before its labours are complete.
The hon. Lady asked me for a specific date. I hope that she will excuse me if I do not pin the Committee down. Nothing is more difficult than to try to pin down an independent committee such as this, and very often the committee itself cannot forecast how long its deliberations will take, because questions of the quantity of evidence and the difficulty in arranging meetings at specific locations as committees move around are important factors. Suffice it to say that the importance attached by every quarter to the Committee will, I believe, be a spur to ensure that it reports as quickly as possible.
Perhaps I may touch a little on the background justification for setting up the Briggs Committee, since it touches on so many of the pertinent points raised by the hon. Members for Ealing, North and Fife, West.
First, from the point of view of the employers at large—the Government, the Department, the National Health Service and the regional boards—that is summed up simply in the word "manpower". The numbers of qualified nursing staff in post have been increasing, but they still fall short of demand, especially, as the hon. Lady said, in mental illness, mental subnormality, and the geriatric hospitals —certainly the more isolated ones.
Recruitment to nursing, as to other professions relying heavily on female staff, is also likely to be affected by the falling numbers of 18-year-olds in the next few years and the earlier average ages of marriage and motherhood. It is not as bad as in the teaching profession, but certainly it represents an early departure from service. Even if we recruited as many nurses as we wished, still the wastage rate would present a very serious problem. So, because of the wastage rate and difficulties over recruitment, fundamentally the manpower aspect is an

important Departmental stake in the Briggs Committee.
The nursing profession itself has for some time been calling for a review of the arrangements for nursing education. This is perhaps one of the profession's major interests in the Asa Briggs Committee. Developments in education generally, changes in the scope of nursing, tutor shortages and student wastage all affect the nurses' education needs. However, education is not a matter which can be reviewed in isolation. It is the purpose for which we are educating nurses which is of cardinal importance. That is why the modern rôle of the nurse or midwife, the first part of the Committee's terms of reference, is crucial.
There is no doubt that the rôle of nurses has been undergoing a dramatic change, even dating back to pre-war years. The hon. Lady, who is a great expert in these matters—

Dr. Summerskill: Not going that far back!

Mr. Alison: I take that point. She is a great expert in the post-war phenomenon, and she will appreciate that, whereas in the old days the doctor diagnosed, the nurse nursed the case, and the crucial rôle in the recovery of that patient was played by the nurse, we have to face the fact that, over the years, there have been changes. With antibiotics, the sulphonomides and a whole range of modern drugs, together with a corps of professional ancillary specialists, a vast amount of change has taken place to affect the relationship of doctor and nurse in the care of the patient which was a cardinal part of the job satisfaction in nursing. It is extremely difficult to compensate for such changes, and the changing characteristics of nursing are among the important subjects being studied by the Asa Briggs Committee.
Nursing techniques may be becoming more advanced but, paradoxically, other advances come in which tend to dispirit the old appeal of nursing—that intimate, personal, direct care of a fundamental kind which was a feature of the older structure of therapy in our service.
Organisational changes affect nursing work. The Salmon structure for senior


nursing staff offers opportunities for nursing expertise to be built into policy making at every level, and it is important that nurses should be equipped to use these opportunities to make their voices heard.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, because of the introduction of antibiotics and other modern drugs, the rôle of the nurse is less and less important? If he is, I can assure him that successful and skilled nursing is no less required today than it was 20 years ago.

Mr. Alison: I do not want that interpretation to be placed upon my remarks. I have just said that nursing techniques are becoming more advanced. While nursing education has to be more and more thorough and more and more specialised and the nurses become increasingly skilled, nevertheless much of the job satisfaction of nursing in its original form lay in the special relationship between doctor, patient and nurse. The essence of that relationship is tending to be disrupted by the injection of a whole new range of depersonalising elements. Although the new professional practitioners and new kinds of medicines and drugs place greater premiums on the skills of nurses, they tend in many ways to depersonalise that relationship, particularly with the doctor, which was so much part of nursing in its origins.
The simple illustration I have given of how the doctor diagnosed pneumonia and the nurse nursed the patient for pneumonia whereas now—and the disease is no longer hazardous—the doctor merely prescribes a chemical remedy so that much of the caring element of the old days is removed is typical of the trend. One has to consider what may be some of the underlying factors. It is debatable, but I am not sure that they do not have an important effect on the evacuation from training of some students and the high degree of wastage and perhaps the diminution in job satisfaction which one finds in some hospitals. Paradoxically, in intensive care units where there is a highly concentrated mix of modern chemicals and technical nursing and remedies and the extremely close co-operation between nurse and professional medical staff the personal element is restored, and there is no difficulty about

getting nurses to work in intensive care units.

Dr. Summerskill: I follow that argument, but can the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that there is such a shortage in geriatric and mentally sick wards where antibiotics are not used and other magic cures are not used and where there is personal care and drudgery as well as responsibility and where there is an intimate nurse-patient relationship with old people and mentally ill people?

Mr. Alison: I do not claim to be an expert, but part of the explanation may be that in many of the older mentally handicapped and mental illness hospitals there is not present that dynamic therapeutic leadership on the medical side but rather the old custodial approach without the prospect of highly intelligent modern medical techniques being applied which encourage the nurses' direct co-operation with the medical staff. The multi-disciplinary aspects of medical care in mentally handicapped hospitals is being increasingly applied, and this reintroduces a sense of involvement of the nurses with the medical staff.
The hon. Lady will appreciate that in many isolated mentally handicapped and mental illness hospitals the attractions of the long weekend, with the leisure attractions which the modern prosperous age provides for young people, may not be offset by the glamour which we have come to associate with medical hospitals and the big centres where there is exciting work of a highly varied nature. This is bound to have an impact on retaining young nurses in such circumstances.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member says that the introduction of antibiotics has depersonalised nursing. It is my experience that the reverse is true. Because a nurse has to be highly qualified, she has to know all about antibiotics. She has to liaise closely with the doctor who may wish to change from one drug to another in his treatment of the patient. The result is that the nurse has to know much more about a patient than was the case 30 or 40 years ago when the nurse merely applied the treatment ordered by the doctor.

Mr. Alison: I take the point and the hon. Lady would no doubt agree that often nurses know a good deal more about


the patient, because patients are much more inclined to communicate with them than with doctors. I was referring to the triangular relationship, and I hope the hon. Member will not escape with the impression that there has been any diminution in the intimate involvement of the nurse with her patient. There has been something of a breakdown in the triangular relationship with the doctor, as a result of the doctor becoming more specialised. There is a lot of speculation about this but it is realistic to try to probe beneath the surface.
It could be argued that this triangular relationship which used to be so much a feature of the highly collaborative effort in the earlier days, when there were not so many patent devices on hand, has been eroded, perhaps inevitably, because of the things which are on hand now. It is perhaps this which is at the root of the difficulties over job satisfaction which nurses have felt.
This is typically the sort of question with which the Briggs Committee will be dealing and upon which it will be hearing evidence. I put this forward as something which highly skilled and respected professions are suggesting. I am not producing this off my own bat.

Mr. Spriggs: There is one point to do with the shortage of nurses which the hon. Gentleman has not touched upon, and on which I have personal experience. This relates to the Cowley Hill Maternity Hospital, St. Helens. Some months ago it was leaked, I think deliberately, that this hospital was to close down. The change of use was to be decided by the regional board and the local authorities. The excuse for closing it down was that there was a shortage of nursing staff. I found out that the real reason was that nurses asked, "What is the use of going there? We have heard it is closing down." That was the real reason why nursing staff could not be obtained. This is one of the cases at which the Minister would do well to look. He should discuss it with the regional board.

Mr. Alison: I will look into it and if possible will give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer. I take the point that there is a "chicken and egg" situation with many specific local cases. This is one of the reasons why we have tried to

overhaul and rationalise, as far as possible, the procedures for closures. My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to this. Local boards, from whom he from time to time, receives such applications, are asked about the extent to which they have been able to recruit and deploy locally-based nursing staff who, if the hospital closes, would not move to another hospital, but who would agree to serve in that hospital. That is a factor in the consideration, because closure proposals bulk large in his thoughts.
On the question of midwives, on which the hon. Gentleman also touched, my right hon. Friend has agreed in principle that the hospital and community health services should be unified, and we need to consider how this will affect the work of nurses and midwives. The Peel Report points to changes in emphasis in the work of midwives with growing hospital confinement rates but earlier discharge. Early discharge of patients creates a new situation in both hospital and community. We need to give nurses the tools to cope with the changes that are already taking place and to equip them to meet future change.

Mr. Molloy: May I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to this incredible situation? My own daughter is a State-registered nurse, having taken all the examinations. She wished to take also the State certified midwife examination, but unfortunately two months ago she contracted a disease which ended in her having meningitis. The result was that her planned programme by which, on 1st February she would have started her midwifery course, was disrupted.
When she recovered from meningitis, she was on sick pay but had to gamble, after being in hospital for two months, and forecast whether she would be fit enough by 1st February to take her midwifery course, because she would have to give a month's notice to the hospital where she is a staff sister and would then be able to start the course in another hospital. One is not allowed to take the course in the hospital where one took the S.R.N. course. It so happens that she took that gamble and on 1st January said, "I resign from the hospital where I am a staff nurse" Unfortunately her recovery was retarded and she was not able to start. She is now unemployed. I think this is a point


the hon. Gentleman should look at in some depth.

Mr. Alison: I shall read carefully the case the hon. Member has outlined and I shall write to him after weighing it up.
The sort of topics the Briggs Committee will have to cover include sources of recruitment and demographic factors such as the drop out at 18 years which is affecting recruitment, and how retention rates can be improved. Going back to the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West, about early drop out, the Committee has to consider how the best use can be made of the nurses we have. This is an important part of its remit. It has to evolve realistic recommendations on education for present needs and for the needs of future students of different ages and educational backgrounds.
It will have to look at how practical work and experience in hospital can best be combined with formal training; at the organisation and staffing of training establishments; and at the links nurse education should have with the mainstream of further education.
As well as taking evidence very widely, the Committee has set in hand a number of research projects gathering information about nurses' career patterns, about those who have left nursing and why, about nurses' attitudes to their work and education, and about present training provision at both basic and post-basic levels. At the same time, members of the Briggs Committee are visiting hospitals and local authorities to talk to nurses and see them at work at first hand. Groups of members are giving intensive consideration to particular aspects of the Committee's remit and bringing their findings back to increase the Committee's store of knowledge. It is very thorough-going and comprehensive, and I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax will not grudge the time which I believe the Committee must properly spend in this enormously far-reaching, almost sociological investigation into the nurse's career.
I recognise that, apart from the pay and conditions of service negotiated on the Whitley Council, about which we have heard some critical remarks, there are other matters affecting the status and working conditions of nurses for which my Department is more directly respon-

sible. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), wrote a personal letter to chairmen of hospital management committees and boards of governors of teaching hospitals about these matters in May last year, and in June his letter was more formally circulated under a Hospital Memorandum entitled "Action to Improve the Nursing Situation". The present Secretary of State has endorsed the principles set out in his predecessor's letter, and we are now about to call for reports from hospital authorities on the action which they have taken in response to it.
The House may like to know the main points which we are following up. First, the involvement of nurses in management. It has long been my Department's policy that hospital matrons should have the right to attend meetings of their hospital house committees when matters affecting the nursing services are being discussed, but the introduction of the new senior nursing staff structure recommended by the Salmon Committee and of the new system for the organisation of medical work recommended in the "Cogwheel" Report has enabled us to strengthen this policy. It now is that the chief nursing officer should have the right to attend meetings of hospital management committees or board of governors and that she should similarly be invited to attend meetings of the medical executive committee or group medical advisory committee and its divisions or equivalent sub-committees. This policy supports the nursing profession's right to be present whenever decisions affecting nurses are being made. It is for the profession to ensure that this right is effectively exercised.
Next, relief from non-nursing duties. It is obvious that the time of qualified nurses, or of those training to become qualified, should not be wasted on domestic and other duties which do not require nursing skill. But some hospitals still have far to go to achieve this objective. We willingly concede that point. I do not underestimate the problems. In some areas domestic staff are actually more difficult to recruit than nursing staff—the House should weigh the significance of that—and the best pattern of organisation of non-nursing duties is not yet quite clear. But we are determined that we should


make progress in overcoming these problems.
Finally, nurses' living and working conditions other than those negotiated on the Whitley Council. Given that the nursing service must be maintained throughout the 24 hours of the day and seven days of the week, nurses are inevitably subject to inconvenience and stress in their working lives. I do not defer to any hon. Member in readily recognising the exceptional stress in which their job and its implications involve them. But there are many respects in which good management can alleviate or compensate for this—rational use of beds and other facilities, good planning and organisation of duty rotas and equitable allocation of staff between duties, good canteens, rest rooms, changing rooms and transport facilities for nonresident staff, which are particularly important in the matter of calling back the married nurse upon which the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax laid stress, and good residential accommodation, including some provision for recreation, for those who must be resident in the hospital.
Some of these things require new buildings, which cannot be achieved all at once. What all of them require is good management, alive to the needs of the nursing staff. The hon. Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax can he assured that, in so far as it lies within the power of the Department and of good management in the National Health Service, we shall do all we can to relieve nurses of these elements of stress and to promote their overall status and well-being in the hospital service.
Perhaps in conclusion I may be permitted to say, as one or two instances of exceptional demands placed upon nurses have been given by hon. Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Fife, West —who, for all I know, may have been speaking from personal experience, or that of a member of his own family—that if hon. Gentlemen have particular cases which they think reflect bad management or an ill-thought-out rota scheme —anything like that—I shall be very happy if they will write to me, and I will ensure that they receive personal attention. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will feel, from these remarks, that we have done justice to what I believe is a crucially important and well worth-while topic.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SUBJECTS OVERSEAS

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Britons living abroad do not always get that protection from British officials to which they are entitled. I mean no attack on the Foreign Office. I am well aware that many thousands of officials give devoted service to British citizens living all over the world.
I believe, however, that in this country there are a number of people who are ashamed of our past Empire and of our present Commonwealth. Personally, I do not agree with them. I believe that our Empire did more good for more people than any other empire, even including the Roman Empire. It established the rule of law and an independent judiciary, it provided an incorruptible civil service, voluntary service in local government, and many other assets. Perhaps we can be accused of not establishing full parliamentary democracy, but—who knows?—this may well come later, when the new countries have more widespread education and more educated electorates.
I believe, however, that from the view certain people take of being ashamed of the past flows the belief that Britons really have no right to live and work abroad, particularly in the continents of Africa and Asia, and that those who do establish their homes on those continents are there on sufferance. I believe that this kind of feeling is sometimes reflected by British officials; or, to put it another way, I believe that, on occasions, British officials there believe that their main task is to keep good relations with the Governments to whom they are accredited, and if the rights of an individual British citizen interfere with that harmony, then the British citizen is regarded as a nuisance, and his rights are not upheld by the officials concerned.
I shall give some examples of what I have in mind. It will, of course, be a general picture, though I shall be citing certain specific instances. Naturally, I do not expect my hon. Friend, when he replies to this debate, to give me direct answers on the individual problems which I shall be raising.
I think that perhaps I should start with Kenya, for that country affords the best example of some of the problems I


have in mind. The House will remember that there were about 80,000 British people in Kenya before independence; now there are about half that number. No doubt, those hon. Members who have been here a long time will also recall that both Conservative and Labour Governments here asked the British farmers in Kenya to stay in that country after independence in order to keep up the standard of farming and husbandry for which Kenya was famous, and to train Africans to take over from them. As the House knows, many English men and women did stay on in Kenya, and they took risk to the security from the African land hunger, and from general unrest due to a rising birth rate and unemployment.
In order to help over the problem of land hunger, the Government of the day instituted a resettlement scheme which became known as the million acres scheme. It lasted from 1962 to 1965. The British Government put into this scheme over £20 million. During those years 700 European mixed farms were bought out, and 32,000 African families were settled on those farms. Under the scheme, the valuations were agreed to be fair, particularly in view of the fact that those who were bought out could repatriate their money to this country.
The scheme rather tapered off at the end when the 01 Kalou salient was dealt with. I am afraid that some of the valuations were questionable as money available was nearly exhausted; but, by and large, the first of these major resettlement schemes, in which the British Government and taxpayer invested over £20 million, was a success.
I now turn briefly to the second scheme, which lasted from 1966 to 1970. That was known as the 400,000 acre scheme, because it was designed to buy up 100,000 acres of small mixed European farms each year for four years.
I understand, from an Answer I got the other day, that the British Government put in £6 million—I must admit that I thought it was more—and 200 small mixed farms were bought out. The scheme was, by and large, successful, except that the valuations were very much in dispute. There were only four British valuers to do all these valuations.
As the Minister and his predecessors opposite know, over the years I have had

many complaints about valuations which were submitted, first, through the British High Commission, but with very little success. At that time the British High Commission seemed to display very little sympathy to these farmers. However, these matters were taken—

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas (Kettering): May I ask to what time the hon. Gentleman is referring?

Mr. Wall: I was referring to the 400,000 acre scheme from 1966 to 1970 —after the right hon. Gentleman had left the High Commission. I think it was during his second successor's period of office; but it was when the Labour Government were in office. The valuations were strongly questioned in the House; they were not nearly as fair as the valuations during the 1 million acre scheme. That deals with the past. I mention it to give the House the background.
The House will be interested in the future. Some of the main problems of British citizens living in Kenya are as follows.
First, the farmers. There are some 400 small mixed farms left, covering, as far as one can estimate, about 800,000 acres. I do not suggest that all the farmers want to leave the country, but a lot would like to do so if a new scheme could be instituted. For example, many elderly people, who went out there after World War I, live in areas which were not touched by the two previous resettlement schemes. They are now rather isolated. They find it difficult to get or to control their labour, and they would like to be bought out, if possible.
I believe that there have been discussions over the last 12 months by both the previous and the present Government with a view to instituting a new resettlement scheme. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give me much information about that tonight. However, I believe that it has run into a lot of difficulties—mainly in Kenya rather than here. I hope that my hon. Friend will do his best to see that the scheme is pushed to fruition, because these 400 farmers are looking towards this Government to do something to help them.
There are also the compassionate cases —people with little money left, too old to look after their farms, or in areas of security risk. Between 1962 and 1965 this


House voted £1 million specifically to deal with these compassionate cases. But in 1968 the then Government announced that the compassionate scheme was ended.
What is happening to these cases? A large number of people who went out there after World War I, some wounded and still suffering from health disabilities, are in difficulties and still come under the compassionate category. I hope that these cases will be looked into and that money will be allocated to buy out these people who are either sick or in areas of security risk. This would obviously be to the benefit of the Government and the people of Kenya as well as to the farmers.
I mention only briefly, because I know it affects another department of the Foreign Office, the Agricultural Settlement Trust. The farmers concerned went out after World War II on a British Government scheme, and they had to sell up all their assets in this country to take part in it. They were told that they would have the option to purchase their farms when they desired to do so. It is very important to safeguard this option, because, unless they can purchase their farms, they could not fall within the ambit of these resettlement schemes.
In the summer of 1970, the Attorney-General of Kenya threatened to revoke this option. This would be a very serious matter, and I believe that there is a moral obligation on the Government to see that this does not happen. if these people have the option, they can buy their farms and sell them to a willing buyer, either direct to an African buyer or under one of the resettlement schemes or, one hopes, under a third scheme when it starts.
There are grave difficulties facing British farmers in Kenya. There is obviously still a great deal of land hunger and pressure by a growing population. A non-Kenya national now cannot buy or even rent land, and this obviously creates difficulties. There have been strong demands in the Parliament in Nairobi that the Kenyan Government should not pay for land acquired for their own nationals, but only for the improvements. Of course, the land was originally settled in 1919 or 1920, and the settlers developed that land from bush into good farming land. If they were not paid the value of the land as was agreed under the last

resettlement scheme, it would be most unfair, and they would have no money to set up elsewhere.
One of the particular problems is that there are only four European valuers in Kenya. Two have now left, and I understand that the last two are due to leave this year. This also can present a problem, because valuation is the key to all these resettlement schemes.
The European community in farming areas is getting worried about this, so I hope that the Minister will do all he can to press on the Government the necessity of getting together with the Kenya Government to institute a new resettlement scheme as soon as possible, and also to do something about the compassionate cases and to give some reassurance to those still left in the Agricultural Settlement Trust.
I complained in the House some years ago that the British High Commission of that day was not very helpful in some of these questions, particularly the question of valuation. I am certain that this happened because the High Commission did not want to quarrel with the Kenya Government at a critical time after independence, but I hope that it will be made clear in general—I am not referring to the present British High Commission in Kenya, because I do not believe that this happens any more—that it is Her Majesty's Government's desire that British citizens should have their rights protected abroad, and that this is a priority task, even if it means sometimes having a row with the Government to whom they are accredited. It is the duty of British officials to see that Britain's rights are upheld.
I would go further than this—I think that my hon. Friend would agree with that—and say that Her Majesty's Government have other moral responsibilities, because, in the five years prior to independence, the British Government gave Kenya £46 million, in the five years after independence £69·5 million, and, in the last two years, another £24 million. This means that, over a total of 12 years, the British Government have provided £62½ million to Kenya in grants and £77½ million in loans, a total of £140 million over 12 years. I believe that this gives us some right to a hearing.


I agree that some of these problems are difficult because the Kenya Government has the right in its own country to do as it wishes, but I believe that the British Government should make strong representations. Having put money into a partnership between Britain and Kenya, in order to facilitate better agriculture and the transfer from white to African of farming in Kenya, we could surely bring some pressure to bear.
Many young Europeans, even Kenya citizens, who have been trained for jobs in agriculture in the Civil Service and who have trained their successors in these activities are now being Africanised out of jobs. I understand that these young men have no right to come to British universities, and I know of two cases of young men who wanted to come to take agricultural degrees in this country but found difficulty in doing so because they had no prescriptive right to come here. It seems easier for one to get a Commonwealth scholarship at a British university if one is living in Africa and one has a non-white rather than a white face.
These young people have little option, having been born and bred in Africa, but to go south to Rhodesia or the Republic of South Africa. But what then happens to their parents, who probably were also born in Kenya? Their children have gone south. They perhaps wish to return to this country, but they cannot do that because under the exchange control regulations they are allowed to bring home only £2,500 per family, plus £1,000 per family during the next seven years, this being a concession rather than a right.
Considering that these people must, on returning, set up home again, how many of them are able to do this—including obtaining a mortgage and so on—on £2,500 per family? I accept that it is right for the Kenya Government to have their own exchange control regulations, but I suggest that if Her Majesty's Government are making large sums available to Kenya, it should be possible to negotiate better terms certainly for the elderly on compassionate grounds. I received a letter from a lady in 1968 which still represents the present position adequately. The lady wrote:
Many people are now at their wit's end to know what to do. Our sons have been

'Africanised', whole families split up and scattered all over the world and we are being taxed out of existence here, but no one seems to care, least of all the British Government. Surely the British Government can prevail upon the Kenya Government to allow everyone over 60 years of age who cannot afford or do not wish to live here to be allowed to go wherever they wish and take, say, up to £10,000, which would be reasonable allowing for the fact that total clearance tax must be met, with fares, package and freight on one's worldly goods and the fact that one must set up home all over again in some other country. Cannot we be allowed to join our families, more especially when we are not wanted here and we will continue to pay tax on the whole of our pensions for the rest of our lives?
There is the further problem that for many of those who go south to Rhodesia or South Africa, the Kenya regulations allow no money or goods to be exported to either country, except in relation to pensions earned under the East African High Commission or the Kenya Government. I hope that, again on compassionate grounds, Her Majesty's Government will be able to do something about this to help the elderly.
This extract comes from a letter which I received from a lady who went from Kenya to Durban, where her children are now working:
I am writing to tell you that there are many ex-Kenyans living in squalid conditions here"—
in Durban
victims of blocked accounts in Kenya and hit again by devaluation or pensions from the United Kingdom. It is quite pathetic to see elderly people who have had good jobs and homes in the past living in shabby third-rate hoarding houses—all very bitter about the British Government.
Hon. Members may say that this happens all over the world. That is true, but if we are providing large sums of money for Kenya, we might use our influence to see, as the lady who wrote that letter suggests, that at least people over 60 are allowed to export sufficient of their capital to enable them to live in peace for the rest of their lives.
I would go so far as to say that when aid programmes are being negotiated, Her Majesty's Government should give some consideration to the treatment of British nationals in the country concerned. This should be a factor in aid negotiations. I understand that there are certain other countries which say that if a Government nationalise or take over property without paying fair compensation, the assessed value of that property should be deducted


from the next aid programme. This is a pretty drastic suggestion, and I would not go as far as that; but the treatment of British nationals should be a factor when aid programmes are being negotiated.
I turn to three other Commonwealth countries, and the first is Tanzania. As a result of a letter which I wrote to the Daily Telegraph in October, 1968, on the same topic as I am now raising, a Commander Low wrote to me, and told me that he had been resident in Tanzania since 1928. In 1961 he decided to sell his farm. Payments for the farm were coming to him over a period of four years. These payments were frozen, and while the payments were still being made part of the farm was sequestrated by the Government.
I wrote immediately to the Foreign Office and the matter was taken up. The Bank of Tanzania said that full forms of application had not been made for the export of the capital. I am glad to say that after 18 months of correspondence the British High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam managed to get the money repatriated to Commander Low. The case started in September, 1968, and the money was paid in January of this year. That shows that when the Government take up cudgels on behalf of genuine British citizens they can achieve a result even if this takes time.
I pass to the problem of passports. A problem which has caused more trouble than almost anything else to the Foreign Office, and certainly to me, is the renewal of British passports from Rhodesia. Under the previous Government, British citizens with British passports, who had the right to renew those passports, had to make a very expensive journey from Rhodesia to Pretoria to collect their passports personally from the British Embassy. I am glad that the new Government have done away with that stupid, annoying and ridiculous rule which merely undermined the confidence of those in Rhodesia who were loyal to the British Government and who held British passports. Still, as my hon. Friend will know, there have been difficulties in Beira, and I am grateful to him for clearing up that problem.
I want to quote paragraphs from two other letters which are not directly the

concern of the Foreign Office, and I must stress that passports have probably caused more heartburning among British subjects than anything else. The first is from a lady, again, and the paragraph is self-explanatory:
My husband was born in India, as his father was in the Indian Army and our younger son was born in India during the war. When in 1952 we applied for passports to go to Tasmania, we got this reply. My husband was Indian, I was English, my younger son was an Indian! There was also the case of a friend of mine. His father was in one of the North African countries in some civil service job, long before the war. He was born there. Later on he became a tea planter in Assam. He came home on leave, married and went back to Assam. When they finally returned to England, he was told he was African, his wife British and his son was Indian! It is high time this absurd nonsense was put an end to.
I have another brief quotation:
I am also in touch with a couple in Kenya. He was born in Barbados, educated in Britain and served for five years in the forces. Now the British High Commission are attempting to take away his British passport and give him a West India one; consequently he cannot get a Letter of Intent to buy out his farm.
That case has been dealt with, but I put it to the House that it shows that this difficulty over passports is not only personal but in some cases can have serious financial consequences. I hope that the Government will be able to give an assurance that they will assist British people as much as they can in tackling the complicated problem of passports. I greatly hope that the legislation which I understand is to be introduced in the not too distant future will clear up some of the appalling anomalies and complications.
My final case concerns Aden, now known as South Yemen, and a gentleman known as Mr. Peter Roy. He was the manager of a firm in Aden called Luke Thomas and Company. Mr. Roy served there as manager on a two-year contract. In July, 1969, his firm was sequestrated by the Government of South Yemen. In August—under a month later—the United Kingdom-based firm went into voluntary liquidation. Mr. Roy, however, was detained in Aden until November—that is, over three months.
I made representations to the Foreign Office, which managed to do something about it. In his letter Mr. Roy explained the details of how he was detained and the fact that his personal goods as well


as his car were sequestrated. He said at the time:
The British Embassy and the Foreign Office have not even asked the Government here why we are being detained and apparently do not want to get involved.
I do not think that that is fair. I quote it only to show what people on the spot feel when they are surrounded by a near-Communist Government such as that of South Yemen.
When I took this case up, the Foreign Office dealt with it immediately and I am glad to say that Mr. Roy was able to return to Britain in November.
The next part of the story is particularly sad and though once again it is not the direct concern of the Foreign Office but it shows the problems facing our compatriots when they are working and living abroad. Mr. Roy submitted a claim for £5,000 because he had had no pay after sequestration, no compensation for the property which had been sequestrated, and he had lost his job. As I said, the company had gone into voluntary liquidation meanwhile. The letter from the liquidator of the company, which I hold in my hand is worth quoting to the House, because again it underlines the difficulties and, if we understand the difficulties, we can perhaps deal with them more sympathetically. The letter from the liquidator of the company says this:
With regard to the position after that date"—
that is, the date of sequestration—
it seems, if I understand the position correctly, that there was very little, if anything, that he was in a position to do for the company during the period of his detention in Aden. Since, as far as I am aware, the custodian committee took over the conduct of the company's affairs, I have no knowledge of the extent to which Mr. Roy was consulted on the company's affairs by the custodian committee. The period of his detention extended beyond the date on which the company went into liquidation. I have no record of any service Mr. Roy was able to undertake for the company in Aden after that time.
I take that to mean that, as the manager was detained after the company went into liquidation, the company washes its hands of him. This is grossly unfair. I believe that British companies have a moral duty to their representatives abroad, particularly when their representatives suffer under Governments such that in South Yemen.
I hope that a message will go out from the House that we—certainly the new Government—believe in British investment abroad and will therefore protect, not only that investment, but also British subjects working abroad.
I say again that I do not intend to attack the Foreign Office. Most hon. Members have travelled all over the world and we meet Foreign Office officials in all kinds of places, and we receive the utmost help and courtesy from them. However, I believe that there has been a general feeling, certainly in Africa, that Britons who lived in Africa were there on sufferance. I believe that this was true under the last Government, who had very little sympathy with the white man in Africa.
I hope that the message will go out from my hon. Friend tonight that there has been a change of Government in Britain and that, whatever may have happened in the past, the present Government believe that it is the duty of officials to uphold the rights of British subjects even if it means having cross words with the Government to whom they are accredited.
I have quoted to the House before words used to me by an African Minister who said, "Mr. Wall, we will never trust the British, because they never back their own tribe". I believe that our officials should realise that the more they stand up for the rights of British people living abroad the more they, the British Government and the British people will be respected. I do not expect any direct answer to the various cases that I have raised, some of which are now about two years old, but which are I think good examples of the problem I have in mind. But I hope a message will go out from this House tonight that it is the Government's intention and desire to see that the rights of Britons abroad will be upheld.

11.40 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas (Kettering): Although I often disagree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), I know that he is a kind and generous man. I am, therefore, very surprised that he should criticise British officials for not supporting the interests of British citizens abroad.


The hon. Gentleman referred to East Africa. I served as British High Commissioner-Designate to a Federation which never came off, of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar, and I served as the first British High Commissioner after independence in Kenya. It is unfair to criticise British officials for not supporting the interests of British citizens in that part of the world. My staff were most concerned in protecting British citizens, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise what happened, it is the British Government here, whether Conservative as it was when I served there, or Labour, or Conservative again, but not the officials. They worked hard and really did their job in supporting British citizens who were in their country.

11.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I wish to make one or two remarks in reply to the debate which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), and in so doing I shall not differ very much, if at all, in principle from what he said. He recognises, as we all do, that one of the difficulties in dealing with some of the countries to which he referred is that the sovereign status of those countries which has fairly recently been acquired is very much cherished by them, and we all recognise that they face problems in their countries different from those here—problems which are common to developing countries everywhere, but nevertheless are found in acute form in the countries to which he has made reference.
I do not think my hon. Friend has detected, nor can I, any discrimination by those countries against British citizens as such. The fact is that the British are more numerous in that part of the world so that anything which may happen is more likely to affect them than anyone else.
In general, there are two forms of difficulty which arise. The first is the expropriation of property, and the second is personal difficulty such as expulsion, difficulty with passports and so on. As regards expropriation, it is the custom of Her Majesty's Government to ask, according to international law, for prompt, adequate and effective compen-

sation. This we always do, but I must note in passing that adequate is often the enemy of prompt, because if negotiations are necessary in order to find out what is adequate they do seem to drag on for a very long time. However, we do our best in that regard.
Our policy, on the whole, which is sometimes a little misunderstood, is to let firms and individuals make the running themselves in negotiating with the Governments or their former employers because, for the reasons that I have given, Her Majesty's Government have no real status. We can, of course, and do, intervene where we think some unfairness or injustice is being done, but by and large we recognise that these countries are acting according to their own laws and have a legal right to do what they have done, and therefore we hesitate to throw our weight about generally. Nevertheless, I think we get a certain number of results. and fairly satisfactory ones, and the situation, considering the tensions to which both they and we are subject, has not been unsatisfactory.
With regard to detentions and expulsions, and that kind of personal difficulty, here again mostly they are governed by the law of the country concerned, and we have no right in law to intervene. But again where injustice to some person results, the High Commissioners have made representations, and not always unsuccessfully. I join the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) in saying that those on the ground have always done their best to make represenations where personal cases are involved.
The use of aid as a lever or punishment in regard to countries that have not behaved as we would wish in their treatment of British subjects or property is a matter of some difficulty. My hon. Friend referred to this, and qualified his remarks in a most sensible way. A policy of using aid as a lever or some kind of retribution may seem attractive at first sight, and I agree that the hostility of a country may be such that no one could contemplate giving any aid to it. But in the cases that we have been considering tonight, and most of them elsewhere as well, that is not really the position.
We are often asked to decide whether it is appropriate to reduce pro tanto aid already promised, to secure the payment


of a debt, pension or compensation. At first sight this seems easy and fair, but on closer examination it is not always seen to be so, and it may be counter-productive. For example, assumption by the United Kingdom of a debt or a pension can lead to other debts being repudiated by the country concerned, to our ultimate loss. We must also bear in mind that a small payment by Her Majesty's Government to one wronged individual may open the way to compensation having to be accepted for a huge mercantile enterprise whose property may be counted in millions of pounds, but over whose conduct and policy in the country concerned Her Majesty's Government have had no control.
Assumption of responsibility may lead at least to delays in the settlement of other cases, or may even provoke the other Government to acts of retaliation against other firms or individuals. In such a case, those firms or individuals might reasonably argue that it had been the action of Her Majesty's Government that had led to their expropriation, and they could therefore the more convincingly argue that they should be compensated as well.
Nor must we forget that a large part of the aid that we give results in increased activity in our own factories and for our own producers in the United Kingdom, and that all that also would be at risk.
With regard to aid not yet promised or allocated, slightly different considerations arise. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question on 5th November, 1971, reported at column 1258 of HANSARD of that date, whilst the criteria remain the same, political considerations do arise and always have done.
My hon. Friend referred to one or two particular cases. I should like to give not perhaps a very complete reply but some reply to the very cogent points he made.
With regard to the land resettlement in Kenya, I can give some details of the new scheme that is now being negotiated. I understand that about £3¾ million is involved. Agreement in principle to this payment for buying out farms has been reached. The details are, however, proving rather troublesome, and that is

why it has not yet been possible to announce a final solution. But I do not think that it will be delayed too long. The prices that it is envisaged will be paid are based upon what is said to be the price reached between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I hope that they will be regarded as fair when they are arrived at.
I have noted what my hon. Friend said about the lack of valuers. I will certainly take up that point and write to him about it. In addition, I noted what he said about the compassionate cases, about which I will make inquiry, and also his important point about the future of the agricultural settlement trust, in particular the options to buy which arise under it, which obviously must be an important point in the negotiations.
With regard to the elderly people to whom my hon. Friend referred who are having difficulty with exchange control, I am informed that at present it is easier to get capital into this country by people like them. I will, however, inquire for full details and write my hon. Friend and let him know. He will understand that with regard to those who have chosen to go to South Africa from Kenya, political considerations arise in which it is not easy to see how Her Majesty's Government can make forceful representations. Nevertheless, I note what my hon. Friend says and I will see what can be done about it and let him know.
My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Commander Low. I understand that, as my hon. Friend said, Commander Low sold a farm for £6,000 and he wished to transfer the money to the United Kingdom. This became known in September, 1969, to the High Commissioner in Dar es Salaam, who caused someone to go to the Bank of Tanzania, which informed the High Commissioner that it saw no reason why permission should not be given if Commander Low's agent were to apply in suitable fashion for the money to be transferred.
The High Commissioner had no reason to think that the application was not made and that the money had not been sent, but the next that he heard of it was in September, 1970, when my hon. Friend raised the matter again and it was discovered that the money had not been received at this end. Thereupon, the


High Commissioner contacted the bank again and was told that the reason was that the agent had never applied. The agent, apparently, did apply and the money, I am glad to say, was notified to have arrived sometime at Christmas, as my hon. Friend said.
As to the passport question, I think that it would be impossible for anybody, perhaps even my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, to give an off-the-cuff interpretation of the British Nationality Acts and who is what and why. I would not, therefore, venture to do that. I must, however, say that during my comparatively short time at the Foreign Office, I have discovered that anybody who, by and large, thought that he was British is usually allowed to prove it somehow in the end. That is probably the way it works. Nevertheless, if there is any difficulty which my hon. Friend wishes to put forward, I will certainly have it looked at in detail.
In regard to Mr. Roy, who was the manager of a lighterage company in Aden, I imagine that the reason why the lighterage company fell on hard times in the summer of 1969 can easily be guessed: there probably were not a great many ships in the port for the company to work. Therefore, the enterprise was taken over by the South Yemeni Government and accountants were appointed in London to try to disentangle the financial position. It was not easy to do it at that distance, and it took time.
During the time that that was being done, Mr. Roy was compelled by the local law to stay in Aden. He was not confined in any way in Aden, but he was not allowed to leave. I think that the amount of payment which he had to make was quite large, due partly to the pensions or redundancy payments which the company was obliged by the local law to make to the former servants who worked for it. I can quite understand that, during the hot summer months that he stayed in Aden with nothing to do and nowhere to go, he must have got very fed up. I am surprised that he did not write to more hon. Members than he did.
At any rate, the High Commission tried to do something for him, even giving him a Christmas drink, although it was stimulated by a director of the firm who

pressed £5 into the hand of a Foreign Office official and asked him
…to see that the boy got a glass of beer at Christmas.
However, he is back now. I am sorry about the difficulties that he had, but there was nothing much that the High Commissioner could have done to make matters easier for him at the time.
How far our representatives abroad should press matters when British subjects are in danger for distress is a difficult problem. Naturally, as my hon. Friend says, the staff in missions abroad wish to be in good standing with the Governments to whom they are accredited. But I agree that their standing will not be made any worse by sticking up for their fellow citizens as robustly as they can. They are there to represent British interests and the interests of British citizens, and I know that they will do what they can.
How hard they press any matter to achieve the best results must be a matter of judgment, and we are not always the best judges on our own personal cases because our enthusiasms are engaged. I hope that I do not sound complacent when I say that, while I cannot prove a negative, I am inclined to believe that our officials abroad exert the most effective pressure that our often delicate relationships with emerging countries can sustain.
It is right that any British citizen who suffers wrong must be able to make his representations, and my hon. Friend's debate will have made it clear that this House is the place where, in the last resort, such representations should be heard.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), that criticisms of what our officials abroad do are criticisms of the Government rather than of the officials themselves? They act under the general direction of the Government of the day, whichever party is in power. Members of the Diplomatic Service abroad will find the remarks of the hon. Gentleman extremely offensive when he suggests that they do not press matters on behalf of British citizens abroad. They must take their line from the Government of the day, and it is the Government who are to be criticised, not the officials.

Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Gentleman says that they take the line from the Government of the day, but they have a very clear idea of their duties and do their best to represent the interests of British citizens. To a large extent, we must leave to their personal judgment how far in individual cases they press the Governments to whom they are accredited. On whether it should be done from London at high level, or whether they should do it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, very often we take their advice. In general matters such as aid and those of more Governmental concern, I agree with him that those are for central decision here and the local officials only have the task of giving the message at the other end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice went out of his way to say that he did not wish to denigrate the keenness and efficiency of local officials all over the world, and I am sure that they will be heartened by what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Orders of the Day — RURAL BUS SERVICES

11.59 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West): May we turn now from the difficulties experienced overseas to matters much closer to home? The subject which I wish to raise concerns rural transport.
I will not pretend that this is the first time that we have discussed the matter. I have been present during four or five debates in past years when the lack of and inadequacy of rural transport has been the subject of discussion.
In many rural areas today, the situation is becoming quite desperate. Urgent steps have to be taken, if not by the Government, then by local councils and the bus companies. Basically, in many areas there are no public services of any type. The railways have gone and the bus services have been withdrawn.
Although we are a country of increasing prosperity, under whatever party happens to be in charge, and there are more and more motor cars on the roads, there are still many people without cars and unable to find other private means of transport to take them about their daily business and therefore relying on the public services. In some areas such

services do not now exist. In Derbyshire there are 100 square miles of country in which there is no service of any type—no buses and no railways.
The House will be aware that when the Beeching axe started to fall and rail services began to be withdrawn, it was provided that rail lines in the country should not be closed until bus services were able to replace them. This applied in Derbyshire as in my old constituency of North Cornwall. The rail service between Matlock and Manchester was withdrawn, as was that between Plymouth and Launceston in Cornwall. In other places, too, additional services were introduced to cater for people without other means of transport to bring them into the centres where they could go about their daily business.
These services have been operating since the withdrawal of the rail services. Local people have frequently made representations about the timings of bus services and complained that they were inconvenient, saying that that was why they were not being patronised, but the fact is that the services have not paid their way. They have not been successful; they have been run at a loss. I cite a bus service in West Derbyshire running between Ashbourne and Buxton and losing £7,500 annually, a three-car service between the two towns, a distance of about 35 miles.
A company cannot be expected to continue with a loss like that, and the result has been that, after due notice, the services have been withdrawn. The bus services were once able to use the more profitable services in the urban areas to cross-subsidise and cross-fertilise those in the rural areas. This has happened in the Manchester, Derbyshire, Sheffield and Birmingham areas where the companies have been able to operate more successfully and profitably. It was also true in Cornwall where the bus companies were more profitable in Plymouth and Exeter and, to a certain extent, in Truro.
But this state of affairs is ceasing. Services in cities like Sheffield and Manchester are becoming less profitable, still profitable, but less than they were, and therefore less able to subsidise the rural services. Losses in country areas are increasing week by week, partly because


of the wages paid to drivers, even though the total wage Bill has been cut by using only a driver on some routes instead of a driver and a conductor.
I must be slightly political and say that the Labour Party's Transport Act, 1968, added hugely to costs, particularly by compelling operators to ensure that drivers adhered to the stipulated hours. I shall not labour the lunacy and idiocy of these regulations which were introduced for reasons of safety which we all recognise, but which meant that a driver who went to an eisteddfod in Wales had to find someone to drive the vehicle back so that he did not infringe the regulations stipulating that he should drive for only 11 hours, including a rest, within the 24. This sort of thing is ludicrous. I suggest that my hon. Friend should look at this question of drivers' hours and, while not impinging on the safety margin, see whether there can be some relaxation.
Another difficulty is that in 1968 the National Bus Company was set up. I have never been an advocate of large-scale nationalisation or large-scale anything just for the sake of it. On the figures we have and from the chairman's report for 1969, the company has only just managed to make a £7 million profit. This year it will not be able to do so. This is hardly surprising because with a company of this size, split down into divisions of the old companies, there are all kinds of inefficiencies. It is not operating as efficiently as the old companies or with the same spirit. I prophesy that by the end of this year the National Bus Company will come to my hon. Friend and say, "We are broke, we want more money". We know from the figures that it must be making a thumping loss in the rural areas, not being covered by the urban profits. This company will say to my hon. Friend, "We cannot go on as we are." I say, "Good, let's pack it up and disperse this monstrosity once and for all and get back to reasonable, small, manageable sets of companies operating not only in the country but in the cities too."
Another difficulty are the Traffic Commissioners. I have no quarrel with them except that they are frustrating and to a certain extent restricting what should be the natural development when a big company has to withdraw its services. They

are not allowing the smaller, newer company to go in and provide a service in the rural areas, as they can do under Section 30 of the 1968 Act, to a company wanting to operate a 12-seater. The trouble is that many say that the 12-seater is not big enough. Many of the smaller men want to start with a 22 or 24-seater. I have felt that the Traffic Commissioners in many cases are not alive, in my part of the world, to the need for flexibility. The procedure governing the Commissioners and their granting of licences is antiquated.
There is one particular case where the North Western Car Company is withdrawing many of its services in the area of Hatersage and Bradley and that part of Derbyshire bordering on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant). The difficulty is that another operator wants to come in with a small type of bus on a stage/fare service. The Commissioners have to deal with this. Objections will be heard and it seems certain that the existing company will object to this new service because it will say that the service will cream off the traffic in the area. That is not true. Nevertheless, I think the Traffic Commissioners will almost certainly, as in the past with similar cases, say that because there is an existing company operating there, they cannot go in. My hon. Friend should look at the rules under the 1968 Act governing the Traffic Commissioners, and change the powers and the ability of the Commissioners to frustrate what must be the last hope of getting private enterprise operators working in these areas.
Not everybody is rich; not everybody has a car; not everybody is a farmer with two cars or has a tractor to travel on, and there are old age pensioners wishing to go to draw their pension and children travelling to school. I do not want to elaborate the problems I have encountered at Bradley where parents are trying to provide their own school transport because fares are too high and are frustrated by the existing bus companies and are in difficulty because they have to apply to the Traffic Commissioners.
Many people will be discommoded by the fact that they cannot have a service in their area. One has to ask oneself what is needed. What will we do to get over this? There are people willing to


have a go, perhaps with a minibus or a 24 seater, and they are prepared to run a service three or four times a week from areas of population on a winding route, picking up what traffic they can on the route. This should be encouraged. The big bus companies cannot cope with this and the small men in North Cornwall and Derbyshire should be encouraged.
There is another side to it: the power given in the 1968 Act for local councils to give a grant to local bus services if they think there is a social need for a service. That grant would be backed by a 50 per cent. contribution by the former Ministry of Transport, now the Department of the Environment. Over and above that is the rate support grant to councils which decide to give a subsidy or grant to their local bus company. In Derbyshire, the local councils in my constituency and in High Peak, Buxton and elsewhere have refused to do this because they have decided, in their wisdom—and I think they are wrong—that there is no social need for a bus service to be provided by the existing North Western Car Company.
This is not an isolated case and it happens elsewhere than in Derbyshire and Cornwall. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this carefully because I think local authorities do not quite appreciate what they can get from the Government and what an inestimable advantage it would be. It may well be that the reason councils turn down pleas for help from existing bus companies is that they consider that the North Western Car Company or the Trent Traction Company are inefficient, but they would give a subsidy or grant to some new company. It is my hon. Friend's duty to advise councils that they are not taking advantage of the Act and not understanding the fundamental needs of their areas. I hope that he will welcome the use of the powers in the 1968 Act which were given to local councils and will be more willing to give the 50 per cent. grant, provision for which is written into that Act, and underline the rate deficiency payment which can be made to councils. If that were done, perhaps there would be hope for parts of rural England such as mine which have been denuded of traffic.
We must not allow things to go on as they are. Villages in the depths of the

country are completely cut off. That applies to areas, not only in my constituency, but in Wales. We do not want two separate Englands—the urban areas and the rural areas—with different standards of living and different prospects for the future. People in the country should be able to go about their daily business as they wish, and one of the necessities to enable them to do that is an adequate public transport system run, not at great cost to the State, but when the people require it. That was the purpose of the 1962 and 1968 Acts. The machinery is available; I do not believe that it is working properly. I ask my hon. Friend to help to make it work so that people in the country areas can enjoy the benefits which people in urban areas enjoy.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I agree almost wholeheartedly with what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said about the facts of this problem. I almost totally disagree, however, with what he said about the events which led to the situation and the solution which he proposed.
No one who looks fairly and dispassionately at this crisis can say that it does not arise from the failure of private enterprise to provide a wholesome public service in many rural areas. It is a question of having, not less support but more support from central funds. Rather than argue a destructive case as against that put forward by the hon. Gentleman, I seek to put a reasoned argument to the Minister. I am glad that fortune has been bountiful to the hon. Gentleman and has given him a high place in the Ballot, for it enables me to say a few words on a matter which is of real and vivid concern to many of my constituents.
The history of modern development is the tale of the flow of human and material resources from country areas to urban localities. This is understandable, for the urban areas have such basic allurements that it is likely that such a flow will always be a natural phenomenon. But there is another factor. As the flow continues, so the income-producing capacity of the rural areas is greatly diminished, with the consequence that local rates and every other financial contribution tend to become a greater and more substantial impost on the people living in those areas. The direct result


is that the provision of basic amenity services becomes more difficult and as the standard of those services falls in relation to the level which is generally acceptable by the rest of the country, the basic unattractiveness in the amenity sense of the rural areas vis-à-vis the urban areas becomes more considerable. Thus a vicious circle is created, and the power of this factor to destroy rural communities is very great. I know that no hon. or right hon. Member of this House will dispute the potency of such a process, and I merely state that as a background canvass of this problem.
When the Transport Act, 1968, was passed I was one of very many Members of this House who thought that the future of rural bus services had, to a large extent, been placed on a secure basis. At that time the losses made by the small private operators were not very considerable, and the bigger companies, those which were wholly or partially publicly owned, had, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West has said, this happy Robin Hoodery which allowed them from rather substantial profits which they made in urban areas to give a hefty cross-subsidy to the less profitable rural areas.
Within the last 12 months the situation has been completely blighted. Let me give an instance from the experience of my own constituency. The Crosville Motor Co., Ltd., a company which is owned by the National Bus Company, and which operates in Cheshire and North Wales and Mid-Wales, has, I understand, in the 12 months of 1970 suffered a loss of some 9 million fares. In December of last year that company told the local authorities of Cardiganshire that unless a grant of about £21,000 was forthcoming it would have to withdraw some four-fifths of its services in Cardiganshire by a date in March of this year. The other publicly-owned company operating in Cardiganshire, Western Welsh, Ltd., made a similar demand for a sum of £3,000. In addition to this a number of small privately-owned companies, which were also suffering substantial financial losses, also put in their claims. So the local authorities in Cardiganshire find themselves suddenly confronted with a bill of not less than £31,000 in order to save nearly the whole of the public bus transport system of the county.
It would mean, if these services were withdrawn, that there would be no comprehensive service at all for the area; there would be no through routes, only small groups of services. As I am sure every Member of this House appreciates, once such comprehensive services have been cut off from the vine it is obviously very difficult for them to attract again the good will of the public.
That was—and is—the threat. What of its significance in relation to the rural areas? It would mean that any attempt to bring growth and development into the country areas of my constituency would be frustrated at the very start. It would mean that some four-fifths of the persons employed by these companies would find themselves redundant within a matter of weeks or months. It would mean that young people and old people who, for one reason or another, could not resort to the use of private transport would have very little possibility of being able to move about freely within the area. It has meant that the locality as a whole, which might otherwise have had a growth potential, finds itself completely blighted.
The ultimate result of the development of such tendencies would be to make the area of Mid-Wales a playground for the large urban conurbations and a graveyard for the hopes of its young people. I know that the House appreciates that there is no more acute an instance of this in the whole of England and Wales of a region which loses about two-thirds of its young people by the time those young people reach the age of 25 years.
The heart and kernel of my case is that these areas deserve to live. They have an immense contribution to the life of the nations of the United Kingdom, and they still have a fine and substantial contribution to make.
As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said, the railway services have already largely disappeared. Indeed, if the attitude shown by the present Government to the renewal of the temporary grants is anything to go by, it would appear that they are carrying on where they left off in the autumn of 1964 when there was then the fervour to use the Beeching axe on as many of the railways of the United Kingdom as possible.
I suggest to the Minister that, in considering short-term answers—the use of


the provisions of Section 34 of the Transport Act—there are at least four difficulties.
The first is that bus routes are no respecters of local authority boundaries. If a route which traverses a number of local authority areas is to be saved, there must be co-operation between the local authorities concerned. No doubt there is at the moment a more harmonious atmosphere prevailing among local authorities in Wales in facing common problems than has existed for a very long time. It may be that they are all moving towards some far off divine event when there will be a spirit of brotherhood between them and ancient rivalries and deep suspicions are cast aside. But that will not happen in a matter of months. The threat is such that some comprehensive system has to be devised in the very short term.
It is asking rather too much that. even with the most perfect animus, a complicated financial structure should be erected within weeks with all the complex contribution apportionments which such an agreement calls for between one local authority and another.
The second point is that there does not appear to be, for a local authority or group of local authorities which come to an agreement with a bus company, any security of tenure regarding routes. They may find that after the monies are paid they are still living from hand to mouth, knowing only that the route will be preserved for the next month or two.
I strongly urged the local authorities in my constituency, if they were so minded —I am glad that there was fairly general agreement that they should make these grants—to try to negotiate a package agreement with the bus companies concerned. Of the two publicly-owned companies, the smaller one was willing in principle to consider such an arrangement, but the bigger one was not.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely these agreements with the local authorities, be they a consortium of local authorities or a county council, are always for a year. If they are for a year, there are problems of getting the grant from what was the Ministry of Transport and, indeed, the rate support grant.

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right there. I was

talking of a year or two, but the company concerned, which was not willing to come to such an agreement, would not contemplate anything longer than a few months. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the situation over the railways, where the grant is of course over a stipulated period, up to a maximum of three years.
The third difficulty is that, at the moment, the amount of grant sought by the bus companies in some areas is fairly considerable, but not impossibly large, but there is the danger that, as the years go by, the begging bowl will get much bigger. If the pattern of losses suffered by these companies is projected for a year or two or three the amount of grant sought may soon be considerable. The local authorities therefore fear that they may be committing themselves to a pastern of escalating costs which will place them in an impossible situation in the short term.
The last and fourth difficulty is that, where a bus company feels that its gross takings will not cover its expenses, up to now it has had no alternative but to go to the Traffic Commissioners to seek a rise in fares. These tend to become more and more difficult to obtain. There is a lengthy technical argument, with all the parties properly represented by solicitors and counsel. Might it not be a great temptation to a bus company, rather than face the rigour of such public examination, to feel that there is a very much softer alternative—to point a pistol at the heads of the local authorities and say, "Unless you deliver a further £20,000 by X date, the services will be withdrawn"? There would be no question then of a quasi-judicial tribunal having to decide whether or not such a demand was reasonable and fares would not become more unattractive. It would be just a question of paying up or suffering the loss of the services.
I speak about Wales now because the problem there is much more acute than in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I ask the Government to say two things. First, I should like to hear that they will live up to an undertaking given to the Welsh people eight or nine months ago, in the publication "Wales in the Seventies", freely circulated in Wales during the election campaign last year.


written in grandiose English and grotesquely ungrammatical Welsh. On page 5, it says:
Wherever in Wales we may live and whatever our job, let us resolve that, during the 1970s, we will make Wales a better place to live in for ourselves and for our children.
Noble sentiments, but are they to be anything more than empty words? We ask the Minister to say whether the Government have the slightest intention of translating such promises as these words carry into concrete reality.
On 1st February last, in a supplementary question, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether in the light of swiftly changing circumstances, the maximum 50 per cent. grant which the central Government bore could be increased. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
I can say that there is no prospect of increasing the direct Government contribution above 50 per cent.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1230.]
I regret that the Secretary of State is not here tonight. It being well past midnight, no doubt it is proper that a respectable gentleman like the Chairman of the Conservative Party should be abed. On the other hand, it is a gross affrontery to the House for the right hon. and learned Gentleman so to absent himself.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Come off it.

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State knew that this debate had been drawn fourth in the list, that it affected almost the whole of the rural areas of the United Kingdom and that it had a particular significance in relation to Wales. There has, therefore, been a failure on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to discharge his duties towards Wales. However, I am not concerned to make debating or party points on this matter, which, in Wales, assumes the dimensions of a national problem. It is against this background that I ask why the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen fit to attend this debate. He may have a good reason for not being here, and, if he has, I will gladly withdraw this charge. Unless he has a good reason, however, the charge is properly made.
I ask the Government to overrule the statement which the Secretary of State

made on 1st February, to say that the situation has changed completely within the last 12 months and that it is by now necessary, in the interests of the rural areas concerned, that substantial financial reserves should be deployed to combat this problem. This is not a facile argument. I believe it to comprise a substantial case and I trust that the Minister, who I know to be an intelligent and compassionate man, will apply his mind conscientiously to it.
The 1968 Act allows railway lines to be subsidised in certain circumstances. It is true that hon. Gentleman opposite, when in opposition, voted unanimously against this legislation. It is equally true that scores of them then indulged in special pleading for railways in their own constituencies. They were objectors in the general but fervent supporters in the particular.
I am glad that the railways are subsidised in this way. Where a subsidy is paid to a railway, it is a 100 per cent. subsidy out of central funds. But for every one passenger carried by unremunerative and subsidised lines, there are seven or ten passengers carried by unremunerative bus services. It is, therefore, all the more necessary, in the interests of the future of the rural areas, that such a subsidy—and I plead for a grant of up to 100 per cent. to be paid.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis (Morecambe and Lonsdale): The problem caused by the contraction of rural bus services varies greatly from area to area, and the problems in my constituency are different in nature from those which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has just been outlining. But one thing certain about the problem is that it will become increasingly acute as time passes, and the operation of bus services in remote rural areas will become increasingly uneconomic.
The circumstances in my constituency are different from those described by the hon. Member because there are available main feeder railway services and bus services running, I trust economically, on the main trunk routes; but these are of little consolation to those of my constituents who live in the villages 10 or 15 miles away, and who face in the


immediate future the prospect of complete isolation from those public transport feeder services. We all sympathise greatly with the fact that it is the elderly, particularly, and the poorer members of the community who are most harshly affected by the circumstances which are developing.
With a problem like this we can only state the situation as we see it, and the solution, as we see it, and leave the Minister to sort out the right answer, but in the area I know well the time has come to abandon the concept of the scheduled service by the large-scale operator collecting passengers over a route of many miles. I live in the rural and more thinly populated part of my constituency. Past my house a bus service operates twice a week, and twice each way on those two days. It does not need the Under-Secretary or the Minister to do calculations to tell me that that service is grossly uneconomic at present, and will become more so as the months pass.
That type of service will be increasingly a devourer of subsidies, whether provided by the taxpayer or by the ratepayer. I believe that for at least a period we should have a flexible approach to the problem; a period of experiment. I know that there has been experiment in various parts, but the time has now come to extend the period of experiment, and to see whether we can find a new pattern of transport for these areas.
I should like briefly to put forward for the type of area I represent the advantages of the concept of the common carrier—and by "common carrier" I mean an independent operator working on a small scale; possibly an individual, and possibly operating on a part-time basis. In the circumstances of my constituency, I am sure that what is needed is a feeder service to the other services at the location or point of route where it can be operated economically.
When I think of the transport services running into areas of the sort I have in mind, I think at once of the national carriers—the nationalised parcels service —and I wince when someone sends me a parcel which needs an 18-mile journey for delivery. One almost feels that by using the service one is doing it a grave disservice—and one is. There is also the question of postal deliveries, and of

the transport of school children and those who now use the bus services.
The concept of the common carrier giving a general transport service to a district will be economic, or approaching it, only if it is allowed to provide the full range of services. This is the key to the problem, and that is where we should apply our thinking and mathematics and allow experiment to take place. It is quite ridiculous today to operate, in effect, three, four or five separate transport services into small, remote communities, but if we are to provide the right to operate a common carrier service that permission should be dependent on the firm provision of certain essential elements which the community wants. For instance, I have in mind the transport of schoolchildren to the point where it becomes necessary to transfer them to a larger vehicle and economic to do so.
In addition—I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept that I am being in no way dogmatic or ideological—there is the advantage that the small-scale operator can use his knowledge of the local community to seize opportunities to make his service more rewarding than are available to the larger carrier.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the local authorities in my constituency met all the bus operators to discuss this question and the small operators were asked whether they were willing and able to take up routes which were about to be discarded by Crosville and Western Welsh Omnibus Co., each of the small operators said that it could not make them pay? Does the hon. Gentleman accept, despite his fervency for the principle of laissez faire here, that it has been proved over and over again that small operators cannot make these routes pay?

Mr. Hall-Davis: It depends to a great extent on how much one expects the small operator to operate. We must get away from the concept of the scheduled service as we have known it. It must be a service adapted to the needs of a much smaller community. We must not merely ask a small operator to take on responsibility for the type of provision for which it has been clearly shown that there is not a reasonable demand. I am


thinking smaller than the hon. Gentleman and I am thinking much more flexibly and my laissez faire goes further. I believe that it should be left to the individual and the community to develop what services it is reasonably economical to provide. Countryfolk are realists above all else, and they will be prepared to see totally uneconomic provision discontinued. Today we are trying to provide what is largely no longer needed in the most expensive way—by the timetable service on a scheduled route.
It is important that, if we are to provide subsidies—certainly in some areas, though I said that I do not want to be dogmatic; I am talking only about the type of area I know—the subsidy should go to the community or group of communities to be used as the community thinks best. It should not be a subsidy for a particular service. We must get away from the concept of subsidising a service. Let us either subsidise a collective carrier or make a sum available to a community to utilise as it sees best. A subsidy utilised under the control or on the advice of a parish council or group of parish councils will be used by people who know the real needs of their communities and they will get the best value for money when they apply that subsidy.
I am certain that flexibility is the key and that duplication is the enemy of any hope of providing a continuing service to this type of district.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: (The High Peak) : I cannot accept the assertion of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elysian Morgan) that this is a failure of private enterprise. The 1968 Act was in no way an Act of private enterprise. Indeed the last year has been a serious blight.
I will state the reasons why I believe it happened. We lost this large number of passenger hours for two main reasons. The hon. Gentleman will agree that once a high number of passengers are lost they are never regained. The two reasons were the fewer number of working hours the crews were able to put in because of the 1968 Act and the restrictive practices that were operated by the bus companies employers during last year. I do not believe that the bus companies

are pointing a pistol at the local authorities, nor do I believe that they want to do so. In my own county which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and I represent, we have one of the most reputable firms of accountants looking into the accounts of our own carrier to see whether those accounts would stand up to what the local authorities want. We found that they would. So there is no question of the bus companies behaving in a way towards local authorities—

Mr. Elysian Morgan: May I intervene to put the record straight? I said that if, rather than go to the Traffic Commissioners for a rise, they went to the local authorities for an extra grant, in those circumstances they would be pointing a pistol.

Mr. Le Marchant: Hon. Members on both sides of the House clearly understand the difficulties of bus companies. I have received nothing but kindness when I have been to the North-West Car Company about the difficult rural areas which I represent, in its efforts to try to help me in connection with those services. It has been difficult, though, explaining to people throughout the constituency why city fares are different from rural fares, why they are much cheaper in Sheffield and in Manchester, why in some areas old people get concessionary fares and in other areas they do not. We know that local authorities can supplement fares for old-age pensioners.
The Chairman of the National Bus Company last year—my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West mentioned this point—pointed out the difficulties of local authorities collaborating with the bus companies. I feel, though, that this co-operation is happening very much more at the moment, and certainly, speaking for my own constituency, I know that they recognise that it is their responsibility to contribute towards bus services in rural areas.
However, one of the difficulties that they find is with the other authorities down the line. For instance, there is a bus service between Buxton and Hanley, Hanley is served by the Potteries Bus Company and Buxton by the North-West Car Company. At the moment there is no scheme to provide a subsidy for this service, unless all the authorities along


the line agree to do so. I feel that we must look to an easing of licensing, and to the use of powers which the Minister has over the Traffic Commissioners. We must also look to those areas where private operators are working through the middle of the main licence's area.
The present situation, with regular six-monthly increases in fares, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) has said, drives people off the buses and it makes it even more difficult for those who really need to use the bus services. I can only agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale said, that we must use our resources to the maximum.
Every hon. Member who sees his local bus company is assured that 70 per cent. of its expenses is labour. We are told that if the companies are to put on minibuses, or do anything else that might help, more will be added to their labour costs. Therefore. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale in asking whether we are using our resources in the right way. Is the right equipment being used in rural areas? Are we using our buses in the right way? Should they be carrying mail and newspapers?
Were we to look at these points we should be beginning to tackle the problem correctly.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: (Brecon and Radnor): I do not wish to detain the House, but I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and emphasise some of the points he made.
The problem of rural bus services is very urgent, and one that we ignore at our peril. We have a growth towns policy in Mid-Wales. It is a very fine policy, but the towns are some distance apart and some distance from the villages where people live. I wonder how the good people living in these beautiful rural communities can get to the growth towns. How are the wives to do their shopping, and how are people to visit relatives, who may be in hospital? How are the young people to meet?
To give some idea of the extent of the problem, I remind hon. Members that I represent two counties 1,200 square

miles in extent, the County of Radnorshire, which has no buses and only one railway line, and the county of Brecon-shire, which has no railway lines and an inadequate bus service, which the county council now proposes to assist.
A Government Minister is reported in the Press this weekend to have had to resort to the use of a helicopter. Yesterday's Sunday Express said:
It was quite an occasion for Llandrindod Wells, in Radnorshire, when the Welsh Minister of State … decided that he needed a helicopter to transport him from his home on 'Government business' …
The Minister said:
I live tucked away among the hills, on this occasion a helicopter came to pick me up from outside my home as it was an emergency and I had to get away quickly on Government business … I have always been a great protagonist for air travel because of the geography of Wales.… It is a very difficult country to get around quickly.
Neighbours of the Minister cannot afford helicopters.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr Eldon Griffiths): They are not on Government business.

Mr. Roderick: But they still have to get around the countryside, and the Minister of State acknowledges that it is a very difficult countryside.
The 1968 Transport Act was a good start in the right direction. It showed an awareness of the problem. I believed some time ago that a 100 per cent. Government grant was necessary due to the poverty of these rural areas, but differing slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan, I now accept that they should contribute something to retain a local interest in the kind of service they are to have.
It would not be sufficient to under-write any service a bus undertaking would wish; it would be better that a local authority should have a say in planning and advising on routes and schedules. I am concerned about continually-rising fares, and I am convinced that many routes have been priced out of existence. So I want a stand-still on fares, with losses made good by a scheme similar to the present one, but with local authorities paying a small proportion.
Second, I want the terms of reference of the National Bus Company changed so that its main requirement would not


be to make a profit but rather that it should fulfil a social need.
We have a vacuum in Radnorshire. An hon. Member opposite spoke about the small operators, but I should like to ask him why no small operators have entered this vacuum in Radnorshire which has existed for quite a long time. When the larger operators went, no small operator wished to take over. Another hon. Member spoke about changing the 1968 Act concerning drivers' hours. I understand that before the Act was passed, there was a great deal of research into drivers' hours. I suggest that no change should be made without adequate researches and thought.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will look earnestly at this problem because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan sad, valuable rural communities are at stake. I have come across youngsters galore leaving these areas. It is all very well for their parents. Father often has a job working for the county council, perhaps on the roads. The lorry comes to pick him up to go to work. This will not happen to his sons. They go to school many miles away and are taken by the school bus service. They all assure me that when they leave school, they will have to move. There is no question of their staying there, because they will not be able to get about.
People say that most of these good folk have cars these days. I challenge that statement, because the rural areas of which we are speaking are very low wage areas. Many people are forced to buy cars. I have been astonished at the low wages which some people earn and still run a car. How a man earning £15 a week can run a car beats me, but people are forced to do it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will my hon. Friend accept that in my consituency there is the great irony of an area which has the lowest income per head in the whole of the United Kingdom and almost the highest percentage of private motor vehicles per thousand? It is not because the people can afford it, but because they have no alternative.

Mr. Roderick: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks, but I think that Radnorshire would challenge him strongly on

both counts. This is not a competition, but we are trying to emphasise the point.
I hope that the Minister will view this seriously. I wonder whether we have not already left it too late to do anything about it, because when the services have vanished it is difficult to reintroduce them. This has happened in many areas. We are anxious to protect what services are left.
I have spoken about the ability of people on such low wages to run cars. Even when there is a car in the family in some of these areas, the husband uses it to go to work. What does his wife do when he has gone out? What do the youngsters do in the evening? The one thing that could keep them is the mobility that they could have by being able to join their fellows. They are unable to do so, however, and they are anxious to leave these areas. It would be a great pity to force all these good people to live in overcrowded towns.

1.03 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): At a late hour, we have had a very good and wide-ranging debate. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has done a service to the House and to his constituents by raising this matter. My hon. Friend has a wide knowledge of the rural bus problem, because he represented North Cornwall before he went to Derbyshire and he speaks with authority. I accept at once that he has put his finger on a major problem that the country will have to face.
My hon. Friend highlighted a basic fact when he said that the bus climate is changing. As it does, the big rural bus, like some over-large and ill-adapted dinosaur, is in danger of becoming extinct. Much of the bus's business is being snatched away by the more nimble and flexible motor car. As a result, the bus industry is buffeted by the harsh winds of wage inflation, now accounting for more than two-thirds of bus operating costs, and the industry confronts a creeping financial crisis. This is true in the rural districts, where bus companies find it increasingly difficult to keep their conventional fleets on our rural roads. Consequently, country people are being hard hit.


The rural bus had its heyday in the late 1940s and 1950s. Since then, there has been a reduction of close to one-third in passenger demand while, at the same time, there has been a fivefold increase in the numbers of cars on the roads. The result is that the bus industry is operating in quite different and very much more difficult conditions than those of 10 or even five years ago. It is having to drive up a hill that gets steadily steeper.
The factors operating against the bus industry have been spelled out by hon. Members. Perhaps I might name three. The first is that, because the number of bus passengers is falling, bus services have had to be scaled down. Consequently, their overhead costs have had to be spread over a very much smaller number of journeys, with the inevitable result that the fares have had to go up steeply for those who still travel on buses.
The second factor is rising costs. Of the costs of bus operation, more than two-thirds are wages, so here is an industry which is peculiarly vulnerable to the ravages of wage inflation. Reference has been made to the National Bus Company. It has had to face wage increases of 5 per cent. in September, 1969, 9 per cent. in March, 1970, and a further 10 per cent. already agreed to come in March of this year. The inevitable result is still higher fares. Those of the National Bus Company went up 11 per cent. last year, and I regret that further fare increases are already in the pipeline to contain the next pay increase already agreed. As always, these higher fares once again mean still more passenger loss.
The third problem is operational difficulties. More cars on the roads mean more traffic congestion. Buses, which have to stop and start, suffer badly from traffic delays, so bus services have become more irregular, later and less reliable for their customers. Staff shortages have added to the problem of reliability, and it has been made worse by the drivers' hours regulations introduced by the previous Government. These factors—the operational difficulties, the competition from the motor car, and the pressures of wage inflation—all interact.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester): Will my hon. Friend also recognise that another of the troubles is the

industrial training levy, which bears hard on some of the small rural companies?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a factor as well, and my hon. and gallant Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is looking into this one at the moment.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) gave some examples from the Crosville Company in his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West spoke of the North Western Car Company. I take another example, that of the Midland Red Company, whose revenues in 1970 fell by more than £500,000 while its expenditure rose by £750,000 in the same period. There was a loss of income of £500,000, an increase in costs of £750,000, and an estimated operating surplus of £572,000 for 1970 became an actual loss of £669,000.
With Midland Red, as with all the other companies I have mentioned, the basic cause was declining passenger travel along the Midland Red routes, a drop of not less than 12 per cent. from July to the end of 1970. The further costs for this company for 1971 are estimated to rise by not less than £1¼ million, just under £900,000 representing increased wages. No company, private or public, can possibly go on at that rate, and so Midland Red, like the other bus companies which I have mentioned, has not only raised its fares, but cut its services.
Understandably, this produces both hardship and anger among bus passengers. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently of the concern of his constituents in Derbyshire. But it is time we faced reality. We cannot have five times more cars on the roads and still keep the same number of buses. We cannot pay huge wage increases and avoid increases in fares. In town and country alike, the hard facts of life are that it is difficult and perhaps impossible in some areas to go on providing the balanced network of bus services that most of us have been used to. Just as gas light has been pushed out by electricity and the Atlantic liner has largely been made obsolete by the jet aeroplane, so the big British bus, especially the rural bus is finding it hard to survive.
These, then, are some of the economic facts; they cannot be burked. Are there no social facts, too? The curtailment of


bus services, especially in country areas like my own constituency, hits hardest at those who live in far off rural villages and who cannot afford, or who cannot drive, motor cars. These people are in danger of being completely marooned and isolated from their shopping and their social life in the market town, cut off in a bus desert. Often they are elderly and many are poor.
The question arises to what extent it is our duty as a nation to keep in being uneconomic bus services in order to meet the social needs of the isolated rural poor. How far should the taxpayer or the ratepayer be expected to shield these admittedly needy people from the fare increases which are brought about by cost inflation?
Until recently, the need to face up to the social and economic questions has been masked by the bus companies' practice which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, called cross-fertilising, which was meeting the cost of unremunerative services, mainly in the country districts, out of the profits of the more remunerative services, mainly in the towns. It was the practice of a network, and this made it possible to keep on many rural services, even if fares had been running at a loss.
But the general decline in the industry is now bringing us to the crunch. There is no longer anything like enough to be spared from the profitable parts of the bus network to keep the unprofitable bits in service, and the bus companies are therefore driven to review and often they seek to withdraw the loss-making services altogether. That is why we face what I think it is fair to describe as a near financial crisis in the bus industry in the rural areas.
The question which arises is what can be done to help. It is a question about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have worried tonight. The Government are already doing a good deal. First, there are the bus fuel grants. The stage bus operator benefits from a relief of 2s. 6d. per gallon off the petrol duty, and for the bus industry as a whole, this is worth the large sum of £21 million subsidy direct per year. Second. the bus grants themselves mean that the stage bus operator is eligible for a grant of 25 per cent. towards the cost of any new

bus he buys. This grant is worth approximately £5 million a year to the industry.
In the country areas, there is also a Section 34 grant. The central Government reimburses 50 per cent. of the local authority's expenditure on such grants, and the remainder, the local authority's own share, qualifies for the Government's normal rate support grant. This means in many rural areas that the actual cost to the local ratepayer of helping his unremunerative rural bus service may in many cases be not much more than a quarter, and may be even less, of the real cost.
The initiative for helping in this way lies with the local authorities, which are in the best position to decide—who better?—what their local communities need. And the grant is not confined to buses. It can be used to assist mini-bus services or even taxis and private cars and vehicles designed for both goods and passengers, for example mail buses, are also eligible under the Act.
My hon. Friend referred to his constituency. I understand that arrangements have already been agreed between the local authorities and the bus company, the North-Western Road Car Company in respect of four routes. On Buxton-Glossop, grant has been agreed to be paid at £1,500 a year. On Chinley-Kettleshulme, grant has been agreed at £250. On Buxton-Ashbourne, the service has been withdrawn, but I am informed that there was little local opposition. In the case of Buxton-Bakewell there has been a severe curtailment of the service, but it has been replaced in addition by new services run by exactly the kind of independent operators mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe (Mr. Hall-Davis).
Discussions about another four routes in Derbyshire are now under way, and the bus company is reviewing, although it has not yet asked for assistance for, a number of other routes. I am also told that, in general, the county council is leaving it to the district councils to make the running here but it has given an undertaking to meet half of any local authority grant. So local councils have been given a great deal of flexibility here, but I wish that more would use it.


The criteria for the Government's grant have been kept to a minimum and wherever these are met there is no need to seek Ministerial approval before local councils can go ahead. I would therefore urge all rural councils to study the Department's latest circular on this subject, of 17th November last year. No socially necessary rural bus service needs to be taken off without the local district councils at least giving thought as to whether or not that service might qualify for Section 34 help.
Another area of difficulty—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend said that, if a local authority goes ahead, it need not worry: the Government will always be behind it, if it uses Section 34. Yet Section 34(2) is only a permissive power, with the permission of the Treasury. Can he say with certainty that his Department will be behind any local authority which does this?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend would not expect me to offer a blank cheque in all conceivable circumstances. My Department is willing, and has said that it is willing, to provide its usual 50 per cent. share of the grant to any local authority which meets the conditions of the Act. We have made the conditions of Government grants flexible, simple and almost instantaneous. We have gone a long way in this area.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the hon. Member tell the House that, if concrete evidence is given in future that the net share of this grant borne by local authorities is more than they can reasonably bear, he will look again at the proportion of 50 per cent.; that is, that he does not regard the 50 per cent. as immutable and that, if circumstances change, the Government would reconsider that?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government operate the Act as it stands. His Government established the grant as 50 per cent. and the Act is being administered exactly as hon. Members opposite voted for it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: In 1968.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have got to his feet just now because it reminds me of his wholly gratuitous and unnecessary re-

marks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I was surprised at his comment, in view of the total absence from his own Front Bench of any representative of his party. His only suggestion this evening—and his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) picked him up on it—was that the grant should be, not 50 per cent., but 100 per cent. I have seldom heard anything more irresponsible than to suggest a grant of 100 per cent. for anything anyone cares to operate.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I only said that I agreed that the railway grant should be reimbursed 100 per cent. from central funds and it was at least as reasonable to adopt the same principle for rural bus services which carried more passengers.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member cares so much, he should have limited the effect of S.E.T. and the petrol price increases and other burdens which did so much to damage the rural bus industry. I am sorry the hon. Member has provoked me, but he should not have made those unnecessary and unjustifiable slurs on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Another area of difficulty where the Government may be able to help concerns drivers' hours. These were introduced by the previous Administration and have imposed great difficulties on operators. Not only do they impede operators, by severely limiting the flexibility of their scheduling arrangements, but they can limit the income of bus drivers and are not popular with staff or management. The present Government intend to introduce substantial relaxations in drivers' hours restrictions. Details are being discussed with the two sides of the industry and my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.
Fuel grants and bus grants, local authority subsidies and relaxation of drivers' hours will all help the bus industry, but the fundamental problem is structural. On its present organisation, the rural bus industry as we have known it for the last half century cannot afford to stay in business, so if public transport is still essential in rural areas, as I believe it is, we must look at new ways of arranging it.


It is quite likely that we shall have to change the whole shape of rural transport, the structure and pattern of bus services; type and size of vehicles and the stages they operate, the ways in which they are licensed and are allowed to calculate fares. We must also find answers to the question, how much is it worth to the whole community and not simply to those who use them to keep the buses on the roads?
Much of the evidence on which to base these answers is now being collected in two detailed rural bus studies—one in Devon and the other in Suffolk. My Department is undertaking these studies in an effort to discover in depth what the transport needs of rural people really are in the 1970s, how they are being met or not being met, and what will be the best way of meeting them for the future. Against the background of the bus industry's present problems, it is quite clear that in many areas there is no longer sufficient demand to justify running a bus service of the conventional sort. Where small numbers of people are involved, it makes no sense to use the contemporary big British bus to move a mere handful of people about the countryside.
Every morning and evening, in many rural areas, tens of thousands of seats are being carted round the countryside empty. In my County of Suffolk, where we have hundreds of small villages and thousands of isolated hamlets, one sees the problem each morning. If one had a colour radar scanner one could trace on a screen—and no doubt my hon. Friends could the same—a labyrinth of yellow movement lines for the school buses, of white lines for the medical transport carrying staff as well as patients to and from the hospitals, of red lines for the Post Office vans, assuming they are running, and a whole labyrinth of green and blue lines to mark the movements of private buses carrying men and women back and forth to work in factories and farms—all this on top of the regular stage buses operated by the public company.
A majority of these vehicles, which criss-cross one another's routes, make the return journey empty. In many villages, my own included, there may be three or four separate buses which pick up

different categories of passengers—children, workers, and so on—within the same half hour in the morning, and some of them will probably stand idle for a large part of the working day.
I do not believe that there is any magic wand which overnight can rationalise all these varied services, and I am sceptical of those who suggest that some single control could, at a stroke, produce fewer but fuller buses more profitably. But I am sure that it is right and urgent to look for a more sensible use and distribution of our bus resources, and that is what we are seeking to do in our two rural studies. We hope to find out not only what scope there is for the conventiontal bus service, but what scope also there may be for other arrangements. This will involve a fresh look at the existing framework of the licensing system; the possibilities of using the existing operator services to much better purpose; the scope for mini-buses, postal buses and shared car arrangements; and the part that can be played by voluntary organisations.
In effect, we are in the process of making a fundamental reassessment of our rural transport policies. We are ready and willing to look at any useful idea.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have not been here for the whole of the debate. Will he, in his Departmental study, take a very close look at the policy which is now operating in Northern Sweden where it has been found cheaper to subsidise charter taxi services rather than subsidise the conventional scheduled bus services? This is an idea of merit and it should receive some very serious study by the hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Griffiths: The Government are willing to look at any suggestions, but we are anxious to make progress. I think that to make progress it will be important, among other things, to remove some of the present obstacles in the way of private enterprise coming to the aid of our limping public bus services.
I am therefore examining on behalf of the Minister for Transport Industries the present licensing system to see whether it is flexible enough for present day purposes. At the moment, any person may


apply to the commissioners for permission to operate a service.
The Commissioners, before agreeing, are required to take account of the representations of existing operators, who, in many cases, provide a network of services with the profitable parts supporting the unprofitable. Such operators need—indeed, they deserve—a measure of protection. If their profitable routes are put in jeopardy by unfair competition they may be unable to continue their less economic services. Moreover, more, not fewer, rural areas could be cut off altogether. But where an established operator wishes to relinquish a service, or is withdrawing from an area altogether, I doubt whether this continuing protection needs to apply.
I believe that it is possible—I am sure it is desirable—to open wider the doors for private operators to offer alternative services. There are at the moment too many obstacles in the way of local enterprise. It is not legal, for example, for a car owner to offer lifts for payment without getting a licence to do so. But can we be sure that this system of protection is not discouraging new operators who may be able, on a small scale, perhaps, to run services which larger operators, with their heavier overheads, no longer are able or willing to continue?
I conclude by saying this, that none of us wants to see fly-by-night private operators creaming off the profitable services and, as a result, driving public companies even deeper into the red. Neither would we tolerate any loosening of the safety standards we require of those who carry passengers for hire. But there are these pressing needs: first to encourage private persons to organise services with small vehicles so as to make up for the inadequacy of the regular services; second, to allow people in rural areas much more freedom to organise what services they can with any size of vehicle. Reform of the licensing system may well be necessary if these objectives are to be achieved. County councils, and the new administrative units which will emerge from the re-organisation of the structure of local government, may also have a bigger part to play, and the same goes for small operator and multi-purpose vehicles carrying a wide variety of passengers and goods.
If we want to avoid, or at least to mitigate, on the one hand the progressive isolation of the rural poor, and, on the other hand, the inevitable choking of our market towns by ever more motor cars, some sort of rural bus service is going to be needed well into the '70s and '80s, but it cannot be provided without drastic changes in the present arrangements. That is why I assure the House that the present Government are ready, willing and able to look at any new ideas which will help to save our rural transport, and why, too, I believe we should be grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter in the House tonight.

Orders of the Day — THE ARTS

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): I rise to raise under Class IX, Vote 16, Arts Council and Other Grants for the Arts, the relationship between the Government and the Arts. Although there is no financial reward involved, I should say, in case hon. Members are not aware, that I speak from the standpoint of a member of the Arts Council and vice-chairman of the Theatres Advisory Council, a body which represents all sections of the theatre, commercial and supported.
In another place on 3rd February the Paymaster-General said:
The question at issue … is the use of public money to finance works which affront the religious beliefs or outrage the sense of decency of a large body of taxpayers.
He went on:
If the Arts Council could reach some understanding with their clients that takes into account the moral views of those who are putting up the money. I should be very glad."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd February, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 1210.]
With respect to the noble Lord, that was not the question at issue, but it is certainly a question which was brought forward by the Paymaster-General, and one or two questions arise from it.
First, was the Paymaster-General speaking for himself or for the Government? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give us the answer to that important point.
Secondly, is what the noble Lord suggested something which the Arts Council could or should accept without destroying


the relationships which have been built up over the years between the Government and the Arts Council and between the Arts Council and its beneficiaries?
Thirdly, is the proposal of a double standard—that is what the Paymaster-General was suggesting: a monetary censorship superimposed on the legal censorship of the Obscene Publications Act, which is applied to theatrical productions through the Theatres Act, 1968: a special restraint of extra handcuffs to go with public money—reasonable and justified, bearing in mind that the previous Minister for the Arts, Lady Lee, expressed alarm at the suggestion which the noble Lord discussed?
First, was Lord Eccles speaking for himself? At one stage in his speech the noble Lord seemed to be, for he said, "Speaking for myself". Later, however, he used the pronoun "we". Did he on that occasion mean the Government? I do not think so. I hope that it was a figure of speech. I should be greatly reassured to hear that from the Government.
Was Lord Eccles flying a kite? From something which the noble Lord said in his speech, it seemed that he might have been. I should be relieved to hear that he was.
Secondly, should and could the Arts Council accept and operate such a convention? I believe that it could not. There are practical difficulties in the way, apart from the proposal being undesirable in itself, as I shall seek to show.
For example, it would be wrong to suppose that the commercial theatre, as a whole, would jump for joy and rush to put on plays which the Arts Council had turned down. On the contrary, I think that rejection by the Arts Council would come as a warning to any commercial manager that, if he were to put on such a play, he would do so at the risk of inviting prosecution. It seems, therefore, that he would not care to risk his money.
It the Paymaster-General and the Arts Council connived together to keep certain plays out of public support, in so doing they would be conniving to keep those plays off the stage altogether. Having, on an all-party basis, got rid of the pre-censorship of the Lord Chamberlain, in

which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who will seek to speak later in the debate, played a distinguished part, with the enthusiastic co-operation of the Lord Chamberlain himself, the Government would apparently be seeking to recreate it here in an even less defensible and more ham-fisted fashion than occurred before. I hope that on further consideration this will not commend itself to the Paymaster-General.
Thirdly, what will the procedure be? What would be the wording of a convention between the Arts Council and the Government and between the Arts Council and its beneficiaries? Who would interpret the convention? How would it be applied? To every play? To each play? If so, who would read the plays? Who would be responsible for carrying the can and saying "yea" or "nay"? Would it apply to the general output of a company, and, if so, what would the yardstick be?
Would it be one dirty or blasphemous play per season, like a dog being allowed one bite? Most companies run for years without even attempting to breach the conventions. This new procedure, if it were adopted, might possibly be an invitation or encouragement to have a go. At present the relationship between the Government and the Arts Council and the boards of theatrical companies is one of mutual trust. The Government appoint to the Council people who they hope and trust will not bring public patronage into public disrepute by being either stingy or repressive on the one hand or profligate and unbridled on the other.
Times change and the Arts Council must change with them, not too slowly or it will lose the confidence of creative artists, yet not too quickly so that it ceases to be representative of the generality of informed opinion in the arts. The only way to avoid falling from that tightrope occasionally is to refuse to walk it. The Arts Council knows that it is there to walk the tightrope. It has done so in a manner which has brought to this country great international renown. Occasionally the Council falls out with the board of management but it does not attempt to tell the board its job and to say what plays it shall or shall not present. I thought that Lord Goodman put it well in the evidence he gave to the


Estimates Committee on 10th April, 1968, at page 46, when he said in response to a question from the Chairman:
We set very much store upon emphasising very strongly that we retain our total independence, secondly that we are not operating under a Ministry of Culture, and thirdly that the organisations we subsidise have as much independence as we have ourselves. Those are the three principles we try to operate.
They are three important principles, setting out the basis upon which, under successive Governments, not by any means under the last Government only, but maintained by the last Government, having been created by previous Governments, this delicate relationship has been established and maintained. From time to time it dawns upon us all that what really matters is relationships. If I may digress, in science an Einstein discovers the theory of relativity or in the arts a major writer or painter restates a truth about the importance of relationships and for a moment we perceive it.
But we find it difficult to retain. We turn to our own preoccupations and forget that relationships between individuals and groups are what living is about and the relationship between organisations is what government is about. There can be good organisations and good people but if the relationship between them is wrong the decisions arising from their mutual work will be equally wrong.
That is why the relationship between the Government and the Arts Council and the Arts Council and its beneficiaries is important because for once we have it right. This is why in raising this matter I have raised it as a question of the relationship between the Government and arts. It is a delicate balance and if it is upset we shall live to regret it. We have these relationships wrong elsewhere, in business both public and private for instance. We consistently get them wrong under all Governments. We have them wrong with our political parties. The relationships are certainly not always correct between front and back benchers. A mutual trust which should be there sometimes seems to escape. We certainly have the relationships all wrong in relation to films and the Press, and this goes for radio and television. However, in the arts we have the relationship right.
It is noteworthy that most of the criticism has been of a generalised nature.

I was encouraged to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lords that, in replying to the debate there on 3rd February last, Lord Windlesham said:
In doing so, may I say that we might bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who drew attention to the need to avoid generalisations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd February, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 1344.]
As I say, most criticism has been generalised statements about violence and sex rather than criticisms of particular productions.
Not often, even within the privilege of Parliament, does one hear a colleague say, "I saw such and such a show, supported by the Arts Council, and it was filthy or blasphemous". Perhaps there are such plays because the Arts Council supports companies rather than individual plays and it would be surprising if within the atmosphere of our time, a company did not sometimes put on a play which was offensive to somebody or to some body of people. Indeed, perhaps if a company was never offensive to anybody it might not be worth supporting.
Be that as it may, no company consistently presents offensive or blasphemous plays, simply because all supported companies have boards of management. These boards consist of responsible people, for the most part selected from local communities, and while, if they are wise, they will allow producers to have their heads, they would never sanction or tolerate a season or blasphemous or pornographic material. Such a thing cannot and does not occur under our system.
On the other hand, it is no good pretending that our times are not what they are, that Mr. Murdoch's News of the World does not have sex on every page and sells more than any other Sunday newspaper or that The Sun has not been rescued from oblivion by a similar prescription—perhaps a sad one, considering what some of us believe to be the true function of the Press. The cinema is so full of sex and television of violence that critics past the first flush of youth risk being replaced by giving the clear impression that they are no longer enjoying their jobs.
But the theatre is a more serious medium. For example, of all the Sunday Times critics, Harold Hobson alone gives the weekly impression of being


thrilled and impressed by what he has seen, even if he sometimes disagrees with it or dislikes it. I am sure that there is not a serious man or woman connected with the theatre, commercial or supported, who would think it a good idea to add to the existing restrictions on the theatre, and I hope that we will hear no more of it.
Consider how difficult it is to get a play presented. First, the author must write it. He must then find a producer to present it. The producer must find a company which is willing to put on a new play amid the welter of revivals and so on. If it is a supported company, the play must be fitted into a programme of plays and the programme for the season must be approved by the board. Censorship is not only a matter of law. There are a dozen other censors to be passed: actors, money, directors, impressarios, boards, committees—all these have to be satisfied before ever a play gets on to the stage.
Mr. Paul Raymond and one or two others specialise in the daring sort of show which Lord Eccles finds quite inoffensive, as I do myself, but these are commercial shows, and even "Oh! Calcutta!" has now been overtaken by the commercial theatre. So should we not ask whether the Arts Council is doing its job properly rather than be over-concerned with questions of censorship or blasphemy?
As for those four-letter words, I confess that I do not believe that people utter them quite so often as playwrights like to pretend these days, but I believe that the words are beginning to lose their magic as, indeed, "bloody" lost its magic with the passage of years. I believe that before long dramatists will have to return to the hard slog of being coherent.
It is not true that the Council has ever overspent its grant. It is true that two beneficiaries recently overspent and that the Council covered their deficit. I believe that they will not do it again, because the Council will make it clear to beneficiaries, arising from those two cases, that if boards of management overspend in future it will be no good coming to the Council to be bailed out. The boards themselves will have to raise money to cover deficits from other

sources which perhaps they do not exploit, locally and generally, as much as they should. I say that, but I suppose that there will always be special cases, and certainly the two in question —Sadler's Wells and the Welsh National Opera—were special cases. That will be explained next month, I think, to the Public Accounts Committee—I hope to its satisfaction.
Another matter is the Arts Council's indication to, for example, Salisbury, Peterborough, Derby and Bolton that, although the Council had no money to help them with their plans for a future theatre enterprise, it hoped to have some, and to assist in the building of new theatres, all being well, in years to come. The Council has been told pretty clearly that it should not have said any such thing. I believe that that is technically quite right, but how could local fundraising efforts have been maintained if this naughty nod or wink had not been given?
Some way must be found of allowing the Council, perhaps in consultation with the Minister, to enter into future commitments, so that local authorities can have some security in providing for a theatre when they are reconstructing their urban areas. Otherwise, it is impossible for the Council to sit mumchance when local authorities say, "We are contemplating rebuilding our urban area. In two years' time we shall have a theatre. Shall we provide for it in our plans?" If the Council is to sit mum and say: "We must not speak a word about what is to happen in two years' time," it seems to me to present such an impossible situation that it is necessary to find a way out of the dilemma.
One way could be an arrangement between the Arts Council and the Minister that together they might agree, without any formal commitment, that the Council would in future look favourably upon such a project, the details and arrangements for which had been clearly set out before even any moral undertaking was given.
It is not for me to say that the Arts Council is perfect. That would not be true. It can be said, however, that within the limits of human fallibility Britain has evolved a way of supporting the arts which some study has persuaded me has


considerable advantages over other systems which I have examined in various parts of the world. Its continued success depends upon the preservation of a series of understandings which have been built up and maintained under successive Governments. Whoever undermines those understandings will not be doing the nation a service.

1.55 a.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford): I am very glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on such an important subject, albeit the Chamber is not exactly overcrowded at this hour of the morning. However, it makes up in quality for what it may lack in quantity. At least everyone here is presumably interested in the debate, otherwise they would be in bed.
I congratulate the hon Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on choosing this subject, the same subject as I chose. Great minds clearly think alike in this case. I congratulate him, too, on the work he does for the Arts Council and for the arts in the House. I listened—not with agreement, but certainly with the greatest attention—to the very thoughtful speech he made tonight on the subject of censorship. I do not intend immediately to follow him in his reflections on that subject, though I hope to take him up a little later in my speech.
I want, first, to make some reflections on the general relationship between the arts and the Government. It may be asked: what have the arts to do with politicians at all? The answer was given by the Minister—Lord Eccles—in the speech he made to the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool in October, when he said that politicians were concerned with the quality of life. A similar thought had been expressed some years before by Lord Keynes, when he said that the role of politicians was to be the trustees of the possibilities of civilisation—not a primary rôle, but at any rate a most important secondary one. The arts are clearly amongst the highest, if not the highest, of the possibilities of civilisation.
I am not saying that it is the duty of politicians, much less members of the Government, to create works of art—the mind rather staggers at that thought—but rather to create the conditions in

which it is possible to produce them, to create the most favourable conditions for the arts. Nowadays this is largely a question of cash, because, although the days of the private patron are not over, they are in decline: they are not what they used to be. The arts are all the more important in our society because of the decline of formal religion or organised religion—call it what you wish. Whether we welcome or deplore this tendency, it must be recognised that it has come about and that it has created what Lord Eccles has called a spiritual starvation in our society, a hunger which cannot be entirely appeased by the arts. Just as education does not of itself make people more moral, neither do the arts of themselves make people more religious; but they could well lead people in that direction.
We are accustomed to think of God in terms of love, but perhaps it is as well to remind ourselves that God is also beauty, and it may well be that in our society, in our time, the channel of the spiritual, the other, the transcendent has to come through the arts. The arts may not save, but they may well lead people towards working out their own salvation.
The other function of the arts which is extremely important in society today is that they show us what is going on. We have, if we want to affect our own times, first of all to understand the significance of our own times and our own age, and that is more difficult than is generally recognised. It is much easier to understand the past than it is to understand the present. Artists undoubtedly have insights, what the old scholastic theologians, now gone out of fashion, used to refer to as preternatural gifts. They see things which other people do not perceive. The arts reflect what is happening amongst men. So if we find today that artistic productions of one kind or another, be they paintings or plays or novels, are ethically incoherent and lack clarity and the classic quality of the works of previous ages, this is because our age itself is ethically incoherent. Those who burst into ire against contemporary works of art should perhaps pause to reflect, before they are seized by a paroxysm of fury or righteous anger, that this may be no more than the rage of Caliban who sees his own face reflected in the glass.


The final point I want to make on the general relationship of the Government and the arts is that the State now is the great patron of the arts. Private patronage, as I said earlier, has declined. I hope that perhaps the Government have some plans for reviving this. We have heard discussion about the possibility of income tax rebates for those who make provision for artistic enterprises and endeavours. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is not yet Chancellor of the Exchequer, but perhaps he will have some thoughts on this matter.
Perhaps the greatest success of the State as patron in Britain is as patron of Covent Garden. No less than £1,400,000 was spent last year on Covent Garden, every penny of it, in my opinion, extremely well spent. Covent Garden is the envy of the world. I do not wish to be unduly chauvinistic, but I have attended opera in New York and in Paris —in Paris I must say it was a highly disagreeable experience—in Rome and elsewhere, and the standards of production, of inventiveness, of technical proficiency and of sheer artistic genius are higher at Covent Garden than at any other opera house of which I have had experience.
It is often said in relation to the Common Market that we shall be making a financial contribution in the sense of providing a financial centre. We shall also be making a unique contribution to the arts in the form of the tradition of opera and ballet which has been developed in Britain. Here I should like to pay a brief tribute to Lord Drogheda for the untiring efforts he has made on the administrative side of Covent Garden to make it the success it is.
I have raised before in the House the question of facilitating the work of Covent Garden by making the grants triennial or even quinquennial instead of annual. When I last raised the question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science kindly said that she would look into it. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say anything about her researches?
My second major point is the rôle of the present Government in the patronage of the arts. There is a danger that this Government will be thought of as a

hard-faced Philistine Government. It has been so presented by a number of hon. Members. I believe that to be a caricature. I think that they are a Government both interested in the arts and doing a great deal practically to help them.
We have in Downing Street a Prime Minister with a greater knowledge of the arts than perhaps any Prime Minister since Arthur Balfour. True, there has not been much competition in between, but this is nevertheless significant. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition, who has very many good qualities, would not claim an intense interest in the arts to be amongst them.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect that if he surveys Prime Ministers since Balfour he will not find that we have been devoid of Prime Ministers who have been interested in the arts? Although my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister was not a practitioner of the arts, his contribution as a patron of the arts was outstanding. I say that as someone who does not always find it easy to praise his own leaders.

Mr. St. John-Stevan: I freely concede that point. I think that it was one of the successes—it is difficult to think of others—of the previous Administration that the arts did get a considerable amount of support from Government. I agree that the former Prime Minister played his part in that. But I was referring to personal knowledge of the arts rather than patronage.
It is significant in relation to the present Administration that the two programmes that hard-faced men would have been the first to regard as peripheral and to have cut have not been treated in that way. I am thinking first of aid to under-developed countries, the programme for which remains unchanged, and the programme to aid the arts, which has been increased, and now amounts to nearly £12 million a year. The Arts Council grant was increased by £2·6 million. As Lord Goodman said in expressive, if not particularly elegant, words, it was "not half bad". That shows the English capacity for understatement.
It has been the major achievement by the present "Minister of the Arts", my


noble Friend Lord Eccles, building on the achievements of his predecessor, to resist the Treasury, which undoubtedly would have been very happy to cut expenditure on the arts, as it was attempting to cut expenditure elsewhere. His achievement parallels that of Lord Butler, who has gone down as a great reforming Home Secretary, not only because of his intellectual appreciation of the problems of penal reform, but because he obtained money for the prison programme and raised it from the very low priority which it had traditionally been given.
This extra money will not suffice for all the claims that are being made upon it, but I hope that I may put in a word for the Royal Shakespeare Company, which is ending a magnificent decade of achievement. It has been playing to 97 per cent. capacity at Stratford and 80 per cent. at the Aldwych. It is impossible for it, in these circumstances, to hope for any increased revenue from attendances. It is, understandably, reluctant to put up its prices and, therefore, its only hope of even higher standards comes from an increased subvention from the Government.
One is entitled to claim something. at least, for the Conservative Party in this respect. We may not yet be the party of beautiful people, but, at any rate, we are, to use Lord Brown's phrase, "on the way". Conservatism has a human and an artistic face, although the lineaments could certainly be defined a little more.
I want now to discuss the rather vexed question of museum charges. This has been represented as a break with tradition and an attack on the British way of life, enlightenment, and so on, but this ignores certain facts of the situation. First, this is not a great break with the past. It is returning to an older and fairly recent tradition. Up to 1939, a number of public galleries and museums charged for admission. This was discontinued during the war and was not revived.
Secondly, it is bringing museums and public galleries into line with a number of other institutions which are visited by the public, including royal palaces, stately homes and ancient monuments. The third point which has to be considered is that the habit of charging for entrance to museums and galleries is

virtually universal practice throughout Western Europe.
The important point about these charges is to see them as part of a general programme for improving museums and collections, modernising the way in which they are presented to the public, the layout, and so on. Some museums have done this already. I think of the work which has been done at the National Portrait Gallery by Mr. Roy Strong, who has breathed a new life into what was, until he took over, a fairly unknown institution. Much more needs to be done, however, in museums all over the country. Although these charges may not be specifically appropriated for the purpose, I believe that they will help in that programme.
I should like to raise some specific points about Government thinking concerning museum and gallery charges. First, I believe it to be desirable to have free days. Are we to have these? I understand that they are universal in countries where charges are imposed. Secondly, I believe that exemptions are extremely important for museum charges. What about students? Are any special provisions to be made for them? What about old-age pensioners? Old people often have very few places to which to go. If they have a public place to go to, perhaps they cannot afford the entrance fee. It is important that special provision should be made for them.
What about the scale of charges? We have been told about charges in the abstract, but we have heard nothing about them in the concrete, and it is very important that we should know something about them. Have the Government considered season tickets for museums, either for individual galleries or to cover all the galleries and museums in Britain? Has any thought been given to special situations such as that existing at the British Museum? To get to the British Museum Library, it is necessary to go through the British Museum. Quite rightly, the Government have decided against charging for libraries. How are people to get to the Reading Room of the British Museum without paying a charge?

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton): The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about libraries. He has said that, quite rightly, the Government are not charging


for libraries. We on this side of the House do not agree that it is right to make a charge for museums. We do not agree, either, that it would be possible to allocate the resulting revenue to the improvement of displays. But why is it wrong to charge for our great libraries but right to charge for other treasures which, although not books, are part of our great national collections?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a difficult distinction on which to make a logical case. My reaction is that there is a difference between libraries and museums, and that libraries pertain more closely to education than museums. The tradition of the free library is a stronger and more deeply embedded one in English life than that of the museum, which has been a post-war phenomenon.
Finally, will the Minister make plain what I believe to be Government policy, that it is not the Government's intention to make it compulsory for museum charges to be imposed, and that this is a decision which ultimately will have to be taken by the trustees of the museums and galleries? What is the Government's position on that? If that is so, will legislation be required?
I turn to the last major topic that I wish to raise, and it is the one to which the hon. Member for Putney devoted most of his speech. I refer, of course, to censorship. I hope that no hon. Member will think that I favour censorship. I do not. My first book, "Obscenity and the Law", published in 1956, was written to bring about a liberalisation of the obscenity law which at that time was absurdly restrictive. As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say, I served on the Committee of Members of both Houses of Parliament which considered theatre censorship, and we came to the unanimous conclusion that the theatrical jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain should be abolished.
I believe that censorship in moral matters is almost impossible to carry out in our society. There can never be an effective censorship, using the word in its strict sense, unless there is general agreement on moral values, and that in turn depends on a pre-existing religious con-census, which simply does not exist. Any full-scale system of censorship is out of the question on practical grounds, let

alone on the various theoretical arguments that one can produce against it.
My original thoughts on the subject some years ago were that the law would be wise to draw a distinction between obscenity in the arts, which should be free, and pornography, which should be restricted by the law in some way. That is a distinction that was enshrined in part in the Obscene Publications Act when it passed through this House. But 10 years ago that kind of definition was much easier to make than it is today. It has become much more difficult to make the distinction today, for the arts and pornography have approached each other much more closely.
Yet there are certain general points of distinction along this line of thought which still remain valid. One distinguishing mark between the obscenity in the arts which should be free of censorship and pornography is the distinction between the concrete and the abstract. Lust in literature, as in life, tends to be abstract in the sense that it is abstracted from any human context. One can contrast a pornographic book, using a title which I came across, "Hot Dames on a Cold Slab", with Chaucer's "The Miller's Tale". The first is a wearisome and tedious repetition of sexual and violent incidents; the second is undoubtedly obscene—I do not think that anyone would deny that "The Miller's Tale" contains many obscene passages —but it is purified, as it were, by being embedded in the complexities and concreteness of real life.
One can advance that point further and say that far from artistic merit and morality being opposed, as they often are in the English mind, they are closely connected, and so the artistically defective tends to be the morally offensive and vice versa. That I believe to be true, because all true art is grounded in real life. It presents us with credible response and human behaviour which is not in fiat contradiction to human nature as we ourselves experience it. Pornography, on the other hand, is inhuman. It presents us not with people but with monsters. It offends against that pattern of human nature which is the common experience of mankind.
There are great difficulties in the way of a legal definition of pornography, and they were alluded to by Lord Eccles in


the other place on 3rd February, but I will offer the House an aesthetic one: a work of pornography is one which presents us with an impossible femininity and an equally impossible masculinity and brings them together in a totally incredible conjunction. The question that arises is whether such works should be free of the law.
The Arts Council, in an incredibly superficial and badly thought-out report on the subject, which, incidentally, was enthusiastically recommended by Lord Goodman, not for its conclusions, but for its thought and its arguments, decided that it would recommend that such works should be free of the law.
Many people support the view on the ground that there is no evidence that pornography corrupts. That is literally true. There is nobody who will go into the witness box and say, "I was a good girl until I read 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' and it was that which sent me to the bad". It is impossible to achieve evidence of a behavioural kind to establish propositions about the effect of reading pornography. Human beings are subject to so many different stimuli that one cannot isolate one from another: one cannot segregate them in control groups; they are not Pavlov dogs and one cannot experiment with them, so that it is impossible to find conclusive evidence in that way. Some efforts have been made but they have been totally unconvincing.
Does this mean that we must meanwhile suspend all judgment on the effect of pornography until some foundation, which I presume will be American, has expended millions of dollars to allow some zoologist, perhaps like Dr. Kinsey, to investigate the whole question? By the time those researches are made known we will all be dead and gone. Are we then to suspend a belief in the proposition of common sense that we are affected for good or ill by what we read and what we see? If we are there is not only no point in the pornographic works but none in the works of fine art either. If we trivialise the effect of one we must of necessity trivialise the effect of the other.
I am rather more sympathetic to the argument against any kind of restriction, that we are going through a period of reaction against past restraints, that we have to get through it, get over it before

we can settle down to a normal healthy attitude. It was the hon. Member for Putney who drew attention to the saturation by sex of the cinema and television. I do not think that the theatre, as he implied, is as exempt as he would have it. We are in a period of reaction against a previous era. We cannot understand our own era save in relation to that preceding it. The Victorian era is not as far away in mentality as it is in time. In the late 'twenties when poor Radclyffe Hall was condemned for writing "The Well of Loneliness", the line considered most obscene was:
That night they were not divided.
No one would think that very risqué or daring or worthy of suppression today.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I was suggesting that the supported theatre, not the theatre as a whole, was free from this. No one who goes around Soho could accuse the commercial theatre of being free from trafficking in sex shows. I was making the point, made by the hon. Member in a different way, that the supported theatre is generally free from cheap sensationalism, which he regards—I share his view—as being an area in which one can perceive pornography.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I wonder what the hon. Member means by "generally free", because I seem to detect some reservation. I do not know whether he was thinking of a particular theatre or particular plays, but I agree with his general sentiment.
It was Dr. Johnson who talked of the paucity of human pleasures, and the argument of letting things go is reinforced by the fact that there are only a certain number of sexual things that human beings can do.
After one has gone through them—and I am not speaking personally—after this stage has been gone through, after the public has gone through a certain number of vicarious sexual representations on the stage or in books, there is a reasonable chance that they will become bored by the whole thing, that they will become saturated. That is a theory which I find not unattractive looking at the present situation. Yet is it really something we could apply in practice? I do not think so, because I do not think that the British public would stand for it. The public


might have stood for it in Denmark but that is another country and another type of society. I do not know that I would feel able to commend it when we think that people have, after all, to live real lives and to bring up actual children. We are not entitled to ask them to sacrifice their children to prove or disprove other people's theories.
I believe the situation—which is alarming—is best dealt with as part of the law on public nuisance. One should use the law to control displays offensive to public taste and to confine pornographic books to bookshops where those who have a taste for this kind of so-called literature may seek it out.
I turn from these general considerations about censorship to the particular aspect raised by Lord Eccles in another place, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Lord Eccles said:
The question at issue … is the use of a public money to finance works which affront the religious beliefs or outrage the sense of decency of a large body of taxpayers. I would not listen to anybody who wanted the return of the censor on works wholly financed from private sources. But I am responsible for grants to the Arts Council, which are made with the taxpayers' money. If the Arts Council could reach some understanding with their clients that takes into account the moral views of those who are putting up the money, I should be very glad. The Government would like to hear what your Lordships have to say on this delicate matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd February, 1970, Vol. 314,c. 1210.]
I interpret that statement not as an ex cathedra statement on the subject but rather as a species of thinking out loud. The distinction the noble Lord makes in that passage is a valid one. There is a difference between ordinary commercial productions and those financed with the use of public money.
The hon. Member for Putney, in a rather emotive phrase, referred to a double standard and went on to refer to "extra handcuffs." That betrays a certain kind of emotional ideological commitment which perhaps precluded the hon. Member from making any truly rational assessment of the complexities involved. If one takes the example of the B.B.C., that is restricted in what it can put on by the fact that it is supported by public money. One may deplore or welcome that situation, but it is a fact. It is perhaps one of the great

shortcomings of patronage that this should be so, but it is a fact of life.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not realise that what I was expressing was the rather unemotional thought that the Paymaster-General should restrict himself to the same position as the Postmaster-General used to be restricted to and the present Minister for Posts is restricted to in relation to the B.B.C.: the self-imposed. Parliament-imposed restriction. Our general position that Ministers concerned with the arts and communications do not get into the act of interfering with programmes is a sound one and one which I suggested the Paymaster-General would do well to observe.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member may have had a non-emotional thought, but who are we to enter the non-emotional recesses of his mind? We can only judge by the language he used to express his non-emotional thought. The language was highly emotional, and so if I have been misled about his inner thoughts, the hon. Member has only himself to blame. He has misled himself furthermore in his proposition about the position of Lord Eccles. Lord Eccles never suggested that he himself should interfere with any production or that he should set himself up as a kind of censor. He specifically excluded that. He said the function should be carried out by the Arts Council. and that is a different point.
I return to the point I was making about the special situation which arises when public money is involved. Take the case of the National Theatre which wished to put on a play by Hochhuth about Sir Winston Churchill, "The Soldiers", in which Sir Winston was represented as a murderer who had ordered the murder of General Sikorsky. Lord Chandos, in his capacity as chairman of the trustees, quite rightly refused to allow that play to be put on. He thought that it would be unfitting and unsuitable for the National Theatre to put on a play with that theme.
Those are not easy concepts to define in legal terms, but it is clearly recognisable that certain things are unfitting and unsuitable within a particular tradition of civilisation and civility.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I entirely agree with the right of the National Theatre


to take the decision which it did, which I believe was right. However, there is a great difference between a decision taken by a board of management, which is a proper area for such decisions, and a decision influenced, directly or indirectly, by a Minister.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the distinction the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is becoming very fine when he says that the board of management is entitled to do something but the Arts Council is not entitled to say anything to the board of management. This is a very difficult position for the hon. Gentleman to defend.
One other thought occurs to me arising from "The Soldiers". It rather answers the point raised by the hon. Gentleman when he said that the effect of intervention of this kind would be that a commercial theatre would not put on a play which was disapproved of by the Arts Council. But "The Soldiers" was put on in the commercial theatre; it was there that I saw it. The banning had the opposite effect. The play achieved a certain notoriety of the "banned in Boston" variety, and, as a result, a number of people heard about the play and went to see it who otherwise might not have attended it.
The idea of fittingness and suitability is akin to the notion of Lord Eccles when he spoke about "affronting the religious beliefs or outraging the sense of decency of a large body of taxpayers."
There is this second practical point. If this feeling, diffused and indefinable though it may be, is ignored, there may well be unfortunate consequences for the arts because a campaign could easily build up against grants to the National Theatre or to other public enterprises, which would be to the general impoverishment of the arts.
The third point concerns Lord Good-man's contribution to the debate when he said that in his experience he had had only six letters of complaint during his tenure of office. But that is quite beside the point, because many members of the public would not be in a position to know whether a production was subsidised by the Arts Council or whether the Arts Council was the appropriate body to write to. They may well have written to their Member of Parliament

or to Mrs. Whitehouse, or to some public-spirited person, and made their views known.
So what Lord Eccles is saying, and what I am supporting him in, is certainly not the establishment of a system of pre-censorship or anything like it. What is justifiable, in these special circumstances, where public money is spent, is a check, and that check should be applied by the Arts Council itself, not by a Minister. This, then, is the form of censorship—self-censorship; and it is always best that individuals should censor themselves, or that a body like the Arts Council, or the management of the theatre, itself should exercise this kind of censorship.
Seen in that light, I believe that Lord Eccles's statement is quite unexceptionable, but I think one would like some further clarification of what he meant. First of all, I would like to know what the attitude of the Arts Council is to this project. We have heard the views of one member of the Arts Council this evening, those of the hon. Member for Putney. But is there a collective view of the Arts Council? Is there a corporated view on this subject? The most detailed exegesis of the debate in the other place has not revealed anything. The hon. Member for Putney said the Arts Council could not accept it. But, I ask, why not? Secondly, I am interested in the line of questioning pursued by the hon. Member for Putney—as to what check the Arts Council will use. What form will this take? What will he the general principles applied in these cases? This certainly requires an answer. I hope that these and other questions will be answered by the Minister when he winds up.
I am afraid I have spoken at rather great length, but we have such rare opportunities in this House to discuss this subject that I have been tempted to take full advantage of this one. It is perhaps unfortunate in some ways that we have the Minister for the Arts in the other place, because this is the first debate we have had on the arts. No one would pretend it is the ideal time to hold it. I may say that I intend no reflection at all upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, because I know how conscientiously he has discharged his duties in this respect. but, of course, he


has other commitments, and we have had no parliamentary time this Session to discuss the arts. I ask him this evening if he could arrange for us to have a full debate on the arts and the Government's rôle in relation to them at a more suitable time which would be likely to attract more public attention that our present early morning meditations. I should just like to express to him the gratitude of the House for taking the trouble to be here this morning, and to say to him that those of us who have sat through this debate are looking forward to hearing his views on the subject of the arts in general and on the particular questions which have been raised in this discussion.

2.43 a.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth): I rise to speak in this debate for much the same reasons as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Outside this House the arts are what, I suppose, I spend most of my time upon, certainly my spare time.
I would at the outset join my hon. Friend in congratulating the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). When I first came to this House after my by-election, the first Committee in which I sat was that on the Films Bill, and I soon learned that the hon. Member for Putney had considerably more knowledge of this matter than most people on either side of that Committee. I would add, although it is not directly connected with this debate, that had there been a Division after his speech on the closed shop in Equity I would have abstained, and I would have abstained because of that speech by the hon. Member.
I would start this performance in the arts world, in what I am sure we shall call this late, late, late show, and not for a very big audience either, by giving my opinion on the theatre in this country. At the moment we are unrivalled in the world of theatre. I am unable to speak on the world of ballet and opera, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. The theatre is my first love. I believe that no one could deny that the National Theatre and the Aldwych are unrivalled in the rest of the world.
Showing in London at the moment are "The Beau Stratagem" and "Abelard & Heloise". The Aldwych is presenting

"The Winter's Tale", "Henry VIII", "London Assurance", and "Twelfth Night". Every one is outstanding.
It was a most pleasant surprise to read in the New York Times about two weeks ago a comment by its theatrical correspondent: "If you are in London just go to the National Theatre or the Aldwych. It does not matter what is on. Anything that is showing is vastly superior to anything in New York."
I am of that generation in this House born since the last World War. I am not of those who perhaps remember this country in its great days and in its greatness. But while we have something to which excellence can so obviously be attached, we should cling to it for dear life and not allow its standards to be lowered in any way. This is a standard of which we are all immensely proud and which I hope the Government will continue to allow and give every opportunity to improve.
I should like to add to that not only the theatre standard, but the comment so often made in this House, casually and without thought, about television. During the last two or three years we have seen the B.B.C. productions of "The Forsyte Saga" and, more recently, "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", and, of course, for those of us who are Sunday evening addicts "The Play of the Month". They are all quite outstanding.
I should like to voice an opinion to Independent Television, should it reach its forlorn barren ears. The finest series which I ever saw on its network was "The Caesars", put on late on a Sunday evening. When I rang and asked that the series be repeated because it was so brilliant, I was told: "Many people have rung in, but, of course, the soapsud manufacturers are not interested." I found this a tragedy, because what often happens on B.B.C. is that when a series has been a great success on B.B.C.2— for instance, "The Forsyte Saga" and "The Six Wives of Henry VIII"— it is than moved to B.B.C.1.
I shall not go into great detail on censorship. The hon. Member for Putney and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford are better versed in this subject that I and have a history of experience and record behind them. But I say to the hon. Member for Putney: to hell


with the use of four-letter words; let us judge everything, if we can, on excellence.
When I was first elected to the Greater London Council, at the age of 25, I thought that it would be a terrific sensation to sit on the Sexy Films Committee. So I immediately, with gay abandon, charged forward to that libertarian, Lady Dartmouth, and demanded my place on the committee as a leading theatre-goer. I arrived on the first day, never having seen the whole of one of these films, desperately keen to enjoy them on Tuesday afternoons from 4.30 to 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. Three films were to be shown. I confess that Lady Dartmouth removed me from the committee for sleeping during the second film, making it impossible for me to give an opinion whether it should be X, AA, A, or U.
The failing is not that Soho can play sex films or that half the films in London are about sex. It is that education is the vital thing. That is why I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science present. If education were right in the schools and the lower levels, there would be no necessity for children to design to go and see these films later in their lives. They would get enjoyment from better entertainment if it were taught them at a young age.
I was interested in the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that someone had said that we were a hard-faced Philistine Government. This evening's debate reminds me again of the comment of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), when we were returned to power, that the dinosaurs were on the roam again. It is pleasant to see that in this important debate there are six dinosaurs on this side and only one on the other. I say that with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), who interrupted my dinosaur Friend for Cheltenham, because he has come to speak in the next debate, on London building. So I look upon the hon. Member for Putney as the only one who can join the dinosaur "club".
I said that I would not mention the ballet or opera, but I should like to add a comment on music. I think that all hon. Members would share my delight at having read that it is now almost uni-

versally acknowledged that we are the finest musical centre in Europe. That has happened since the last war. That is something we should cling to and something of which we can be immensely proud.
I am not at all worried—Friend the Member for Chelmsford will probably tutor me later in the correct pronunciation— Velasquez is to go abroad. For the Government to consider giving £2½million to save an inferior painting of which we have six better copies already in London is not my idea of how the Government should spend their money.
I would not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on art galleries. I was most disappointed when the Chancellor brought in these charges. I thought that my hon. Friend's argument, that they have charges in Western Europe, was not very strong. I also puzzled to think which royal palaces had always charged. I realise that the Duke of Bedford makes part of his living from charging—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not want to go through the list of royal palaces—one cannot go into all of them—but Windsor was the one that I had in mind.

Mr. Archer: Then I withdraw my argument, because I acknowledge that Windsor is a royal palace. I was sorry that these charges were brought in, although I would join my hon. Friend in hoping that the Minister can tell us clearly what will be done about the students and old-age pensioners and those children who are at the moment taken around in groups to see our national paintings and do not at the time appreciate or enjoy them but who, because of being dragged along at the end of an arm, may one day grow to have a love of the national or the royal galleries.
I remember being dragged through the Impressionist Room of the National Gallery time and again, seeing nothing, and then suddenly, one Sunday morning, seeing a Pissaro painting on the left hand will of Gallery 3, and having to leave my home immediately to see them again. I would be sorry to see groups of 20 or 30 children having to pay their sixpences, and for this reason I could not support such a proposal.


I would be sorry to see us spending £2½, million on the Velasquez because—as my right hon. Friend frequently reminds me—of the need to get our priorities right. I hope that a priority which the Government put high on the list is the building of a national theatre. Every support should be given to this project by the Government and the G.L.C. A national theatre was first thought of in the 1860s and has been talked of ever since. The hon. Member for Putney has played a considerable rôle in helping it to reach fruition.
It is ironic that the stone first laid to celebrate the beginning of the theatre bears the name of Queen Elizabeth, who was then King George's wife. It is still there, but there are no bricks around it. It is important for us to see that it is erected quickly. I spoke earlier of my hope that the Government would seek to improve the already high standard of theatre in Britain. At present we have the National Theatre Company, which represents Britain, but it is working in a second-rate shell on the other side of the river.
My fear is that our national theatre will finally be opened by King Charles III in the presence of the future Prime Minister, Sir Norman St. John-Stevas. I hope the Minister will tell me that it will be opened by Queen Elizabeth II and that Mr. Edward Heath will be the Prime Minister in attendance.

2.58 a.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton (Poole): I will not detain the House at this late hour because I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is anxious to get a little sleep before morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) referred to us as dinosaurs, and I am sure that he meant it to be a compliment. He also said that he had not had the experience of going through the last war. As one dinosaur who came lumbering through the mists of May, 1914, my experience and views are bound to be somewhat different from his.
For example, the cinema did not need always to be frowned upon in my younger days. My hon. Friend said it was in some of its aspects an entertainment with which in its present form we

had learned to live and which we now tolerated. I cannot help but feel, however, that there is a large and inarticulate mass of people who very much deplore the way in which the arts have now been debased in this respect.
We have come to understand the need for utter realism. I was reminded of this very forcibly when I was taken not long ago—I must confess rather against my will—to see a play of much significance in that it had a religious background. It concerned a certain nun and a certain lay brother, and it was a very fine production. Just before the interval, however, we were treated to the most extraordinary manifestations of nudity which I thought were utterly and totally irrelevant to what was happening. I can only suppose that the scene was put on at that point in order to persuade people to come back afterwards, though it had quite the opposite effect on me. If I had not been with a party I certainly would not have done so, because it quite ruined the play for me.
It is very hard for those of us who have brought up our children to the very best of our ability to find them faced with much that is not good. One has only to travel on the Underground to see the most extraordinary posters advertising even more extraordinary films. While I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth that some of us at an earlier age saw one or two rather strange manifestations in Paris and elsewhere, I can add that often we fell asleep. Boredom is all very well for those who can take that attitude, but there must be many others whose future conduct is guided by what they see.
I speak in all sincerity about this, because our youth is faced with many temptations which, while they may have been there before, were counteracted by other things. I was dominated, first, by my religion, and a real and true feeling of what I should do and what I should not do. The second thing that dominated me was respect for my parents and the way in which they had brought me up.
As Members of Parliament we should do our utmost to try to ensure a higher moral tone in the arts. I know that this is rather a sweeping stricture and that there are many good things in the arts, and particularly in the theatre, but I am worried more particularly by the cinema.


I know that the cinema exists entirely for commercial considerations, but there are things there that are not good. We are all human, we all come in and go out in the same way, and in between times we marry and have children, but some of these factors that concern us as human beings should not be shown so much on film in their worst possible light.
We are Members of Parliament and should use our influence to try to persuade those who produce these films, and plays, too—and even television, occasionally—that these scenes could well be done without. We have our imagination and we know what they are driving at: why has it to be shown to us so blatantly?

Mr. Archer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that something that his generation called the swing of the pendulum has come about, and that "The Railway Children" is now running to packed houses. I wonder whether he realises that films like that are coming back into popularity, whilst the others of which he talks and which he fears are going down in appeal?

Mr. Murton: It is an encouraging thought. I entirely support my hon. Friend in this and hope that it is right.
It has been said that when our children have children of their own they will probably be as strict with them as I hope that my parents were with me. We can only hope that this will be so. I am not quite as old as my hon. Friend thinks. I mentioned May, 1914, and my hon. Friend can do the sum for himself.
I hope that these few comments have not sounded sententious. I am thinking of my constituents, who write to me frequently about this. Many people are distressed by what they hear and see. In many ways what they hear and see is more damaging than what they read, because, after all, if there is a pornographic book in existence a person who is looking for it will buy it. This is very much a personal matter. What is more to the point is that one can often go to a cinema and, even more often, turn on a television set and be faced with something which one is not expecting.
My hon. Friend the Minister will doubtless agree that it would be a good thing if we all did our best to help to improve the moral tone of Britain.

3.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. St. John-Stevas— Mr. van Straubenzee.

Mr. van Straubenzee: We have had a long and interesting debate which has obviously led you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to misunderstand who it was that was standing at the Dispatch Box, but I felt very honoured that you should name me differently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) began his speech with a kindly reference to myself going to bed. I shall have no opportunity of doing that. I have two further debates to answer as the night and then the morning wear on. So, although I am deeply obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind consideration, it will be he who goes to bed and not myself. We have heard in the debate that, as far as I can understand it, two of my hon. Friends have gone to sleep on occasions when one would normally not have expected them to do so, which is an interesting new cure for insomnia.
I shall first deal with a number of specific points to the best of my ability and then deal with the two central themes of charges and censorship which have been raised more than once in the debate. I hope that I shall not be thought to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) in particular if I deal with those themes in the reverse order from that in which they were raised; but as I survey all the various questions that I must deal with I believe that it is probably easier for me to tackle the matter in that way.
I want to start by replying to two specific points raised in the important speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There was first his specific question about Covent Garden. I share my hon. Friend's great love for this wonderful musical centre. Alas, I do not have my hon. Friend's expert appreciation, but I have a great love for it. In my previous incarnation I knew quite a lot about it, because I had a connection with a number of those, some of them of very


great eminence, who performed there. Therefore, I know something of its purely physical imperfections.
My hon. Friend mentioned a visit he paid to Paris where he had a disagreeable experience. I recall hearing from some of the great artists whom I knew from Covent Garden of the appalling physical conditions at, for instance, La Scala.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I should make it clear, as I do not wish to prejudice our application to join the Common Market, that I did not find my visit to Paris a disagreeable experience. It was the Paris Opera that I found disagreeable.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have too much regard for my hon. Friend's ability to enjoy himself to think that Paris would be a disagreeable experience to him. I was quite clear that it was the Opera in Paris that he found disagreeable.
I am told that some of the physical conditions at La Scala leave much to be desired, including the method by which one is paid—literally physically in cash. As the curtain comes down, one does one's beautiful curtsy or bow, as the case may be, and is sometimes hard pressed to know where to put the lire which are being showered upon one.
The serious question which my hon. Friend raised was whether it might be possible to move to a system of triennial or quinquennial grants for Covent Garden. I think the answer must be this. No, it would not be possible to do so exclusively for Covent Garden or, at any rate, it would be very difficult to do so. It would be a departure from any of the procedures that we have so far operated. It would not, certainly in theory, be impossible to move to a longer period of financing for the Arts Council. I would not wish tonight to be bound to, say, three or five years necessarily. My hon. Friend, who has studied these matters so closely, will recall that this indeed was the subject of a report some few years back. I should like him to know that my noble Friend's mind is definitely not closed upon this matter and that was the reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the answer that she did. I hope he will find that the

door is sufficiently open at least for the purposes of tonight.
My hon. Friend also asked me a specific question about the Royal Shakespeare Company. Once again, I share his great love of and admiration for their work, but I think it must be clear from what we have said that it would not be appropriate for me. answering for my noble Friend, to say that a specific client—if I may use the expression of the hon. Member for Putney —is going to be given an additional grant. This is the whole purpose of our structure through the Arts Council system. Naturally, while I appreciate their work, I think a decision upon this must be an Arts Council decision.
The third specific question that I should like to answer was raised more by way of comment by the hon. Member for Putney. He referred to the recently published report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He will forgive me, I hope, for any apparent discourtesy if I make no comment on it. It would be improper for anyone from this Box to make a comment upon that report when, as he reminded us, it has been referred to the Public Accounts Committee. I must be very careful, therefore, to say nothing in any way which prejudices the examination of that report by a Committee of this House. If I say no more about it, it is not because I do not want to go into the matter, but because I must observe the proprieties.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I accept that from the hon. Gentleman. When I made the comment, I appreciated that it would be impossible for the hon. Gentleman to reply.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged. We are ad idem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford spent some time upon the subject of museum charges, and my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) also made reference to the same subject, though not with the same kind of voice. We have to face the fact that the taxpayer at present pays on average £1 a year for every visitor who enters the national museums and galleries. There are about 16 million visitors and our expenditure is about £16 million. The costs of our galleries and museums will not only go up, at the moment at least,


because of inflation but because so much needs to be spent on the museums and galleries, not only to show what they have but to conserve their collections and to deal with matters like air conditioning and so on.
I realise that it would be possible to argue that this increased need should be met by increased taxation, but I am satisfied that this is not an appropriate way for a Conservative Government to approach it, and indeed, in fairness, I do not suppose my hon. Friend the Member for Louth would be in favour of that method either. Therefore, it is unrealistic to suppose that in the present situation all the unmet needs of the museums and galleries can quickly be met by additional Government expenditure. If the appropriate progress—some would hope rapid progress—is to be made, the public must help. That is the basis of the approach.
New buildings are to start very soon at the British Museum and the Tate, but that is only part of the things to be done. For example, by no means all the galleries of the National Gallery are air-conditioned, and the Trafalgar Square site has remained undeveloped for many years. In five years the Tate Gallery will be able to expand on the adjacent Military Hospital site, and there are expansion schemes needed at the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for reminding us of the problems of the local museum. So often, thought is exclusively given to the great national museums in the centre. There is no scheme for housing local museums comparable to that for housing the arts, and local museums surely need to benefit from the standards and the expertise of national institutions. That cannot be done without a plan, to be worked out in consultation with local authorities and the museum world. But all this needs more resources. If it is our wish, as I think it is the wish of almost everyone, to make progress in this field, the necessity for more resources must be faced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford very reasonably asked me some specific questions. My answer is that I do not believe for a moment my noble Friend the Paymaster-General, one of the outstanding Ministers of Education in the postwar world, could be con-

templating a series of charges for the museums and galleries which, for example, did not take account of the sort of point my hon. Friend so rightly raised concerning exemptions for students. I know that there has been very careful consideration of the arguments, which are pro and con, for free days, the attractions of the season ticket and so on.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the old people. With respect, a debate like this at nearly twenty minutes past three o'clock in the morning, however estimable, is not really the occasion for a major announcement of Government policy on a matter like this. But it will not be long before my noble Friend can make a statement. All the detailed matters raised by my hon. Friend will be drawn to my noble Friend's attention.
My hon. Friend asked me about the legal position in relation to the trustees. The answer is precisely as he so wisely forecast it. In so far as any legislation is necessary, it is enabling legislation to enable trustees to make the necessary charges. It does not mean compulsory powers to force them to make charges. For example, it has been appreciated from the outset that such enabling powers would be necessary for certain of the great Scottish institutions. That has always been known from the start. That is, therefore, the position concerning trustees.
If I may sum up, it is the duty of the trustees to run the museum. It is they who have the full management responsibilities, either by Statute or by Treasury minute. The Government's intention is to give each trustee body full time to consider all the implications of the charging scheme. Detailed studies are being made in consultation with each institution, and when the completed proposals are ready announcements will be made which, covering the 18 institutions, will bring in £1 million net. I trust that that has answered all the detailed questions on this subject which have been properly addressed to me.
I therefore move to the first question raised by the hon. Member for Putney and commented upon in a most thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. I know that it is difficult for the hon. Member for Putney to envisage a Government which act as


one. That is a novel concept, I realise, with past years in mind. My noble Friend, however, was not speaking purely for himself. This was not a philisophical disquisition by an individual. He was speaking as a Minister in another place, and he was speaking with the authority of a Minister in another place. If the hon. Member hoped that he would hear no more about it, he is whistling in the dark. It is important to make that clear, and I know, on this matter at least, what I am talking about.
It is, however, important to get this matter into perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford used the expressive phrase that some people would regard the Government as hard-faced Philistines and he was kind enough to demolish that view at once, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Louth. I draw attention, for example, to the Government's White Paper on the British Library, a programme for the creation of what is described as the most significant complex of museums and library resources in Europe at, as the House knows, a cost of £36 million.
It is worth recalling, although both my hon. Friends have done it, that subject to parliamentary approval, the Government propose that the grants to the Arts Council in 1971–72 shall be £11·9 million, which is £2·6 million more than in 1970–71. Hon. Members on this side have no reason, therefore, to apologise for the Government's approach. Further increases in Government support to other arts bodies will be proposed in the Estimates to be published next month. I believe that this is a record in their first eight months of which the Government can properly be proud, particularly at a time of economic difficulty and when, quite rightly, public expenditure has been severely scrutinised.
The first thing which I want to dispose of totally in connection with the accusation of censorship is any charge of political censorship. There is surely all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, stopping something happening, which is a form of censorship, and deciding, on the other hand, not to use the taxpayers' money to pay for it. It is with that that my noble Friend is concerned. He has said very clearly in the other place that he sees

"no place for a political censor in between the artist and the law, which applies to us all." That was accepted by Lord Goodman. The subsequent article in the Sunday Times by Baroness Lee was very intemperate. It is well to have these matters clearly on record.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is a difference of view between Lord Goodman and Baroness Lee in this matter. He also suggests that, in the debate in the other place, Lord Goodman virtually accepted the proposal put forward by Lord Eccles, whereas Baroness Lee did not. But that is not a true interpretation of what Lord Goodman said in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he reads the debate.

Mr. van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman had done me the courtesy of listening to me, he would not have made that intervention. I said that Lord Goodman accepted that there was never any thought in my noble Friend's mind of political censorship—

Mr. Jenkins: Nor was there in anyone else's.

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is debatable. Some wild words have been said and written on the matter. However, I shall return to the noble Lord in a moment, because I have no wish to misrepresent the views of the distinguished Chairman of the Arts Council.
Let me make it clear that this Government, like previous Governments of all political persuasions, much value and intend to uphold the independence of the Arts Council in making aesthetic judgments. But, ultimately my noble Friend is responsible for the Government's arts policy, and it would be grotesque to suggest that the responsible Minister cannot discuss with the Arts Council matters of priority and public policy on the ground that he is thereby interfering with its independence. The rough analogy that I draw from other experience is that of the University Grants Committee. We have a convention which has been carefully observed by all Governments that we do not interfere in the detailed administration of individual universities. But successive Secretaries of State have thought it proper, and the U.G.C. has accepted that it is, that matters of priority


and public policy generally are matters for discussion without impinging upon the independence of the body concerned.
Discussion with the Arts Council must be a continuing process, representing a dialogue between people with a common interest undertaken in a spirit of mutual trust. My noble Friend takes the view that he is accountable to Parliament for the wise and proper use of the increasing sums being made available for the arts and that he has a duty where necessary to represent matters of legitimate public concern to any organisation receiving public funds.
When he made his remarks, my noble Friend posed a legitimate question which concerns many people. There may be some who say, though it has not been said in the debate, that anything goes and that there is no act which should not be portrayed, however offensive to the moral and religious susceptibilities of others. However, as the debate has shown, most of us draw a line of "Thus far and no further"—of what for want of a better phrase one might call the threshold of affront. Obviously, it varies according to the individual. I do not suggest that the right threshold should be that of the proverbial maiden aunt of literature, though my experience of maiden aunts is that they are very broad-minded people.
The question my noble Friend is posing to the Arts Council and the many bodies aided by it is whether there should be an acceptance that public funds should not be used to push the permissive frontiers to a point which disgusts and affronts many members of the public. It is this affront which is the root fact from which none of us can escape. I make it clear that it is a fringe problem. I am not seeking to build it into something more than I believe it to be.
The work of the Arts Council and, to use the hon. Member's phrase, its many clients has rightly earned tributes from all sides. No one who knows my noble Friend could possibly question his adventurous interest in the theatre and in the arts generally, and his interest in innovation, but that does not invalidate the point which I am making, that the diet is rich and varied and the standards have never been higher. Is the cause of the arts as a whole to be advanced

by causing grave affront to the majority of people who at present provide the funds which have helped to make the arts flourish?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify what he is saying? He says that his noble Friend proposes to pose this question to the Arts Council and apparently it is Government policy that the question shall be posed. What then, after the question has been posed? Will it then be Government policy that the policy of the Government shall be imposed?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I was coming to precisely that point, because that was a problem raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and I should like to take this opportunity to answer. The question has been posed. It will, I trust, not be long before the Arts Council expresses a view upon the question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made clear, and it was helpful to have this distinction made so clear, the thought is not in my noble Friend's mind that he should in individual cases act personally as censor. I wish to explain the general philosophy and outlook of the Arts Council, this independent body. It is a matter for the Council in individual cases, and that is why we shall be grateful for the reply from the Council. The point I am making is that it is a perfectly proper question for a Minister responsible to Parliament for the increasing sums, and gladly increasing sums, for the arts to ask.
I should like to add this about the general approach to try to deal with requests made to me from both sides of the House. I believe that the responsibility to the public is being admirably carried out by the great majority of governing boards, directors and performers, but the very fact that public funds provide the freedom to experiment and to break fresh ground carries with it the need for added sensitivity to public reactions. It is right that any play or performance should be judged as a whole, and such judgment needs to take into account the integrity of the artist and what he is seeking to say.
It is right that such judgments should normally be made by the professional and dedicated people who govern and administer the various artistic companies.


It is also right that they should take fully into account the views and feelings of all sectors of the community. Ultimately as my noble Friend said, "the conscience and taste of a well educated public are the only censors worth having in a policy to raise the quality of life." It is reasonable to ask that before that conscience is affronted and that taste repelled those who produce plays and performances which affront and repel should themselves be convinced that the overall experience and impact is one that can be justified on artistic grounds. It is sometimes necessary to shock, but this makes it the more important to ensure that the shock has meaning and purpose and is not just a piece of sensationalism.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman give us some examples of those plays which affront and repel?

Mr. Van Straubenzee: No, for precisely the same reason as my noble Friend, I think wisely, avoided individual identification in another place. I would prefer to do the same. I have confidence in the public-spirited and highly intelligent people who together make up the Arts Council and with whom, on these matters, my noble Friend is in consultation. We shall have to await the outcome of those consultations.
I very much hope that in an age when there should be an ever-increasing audience for the arts, it will not be an ill-founded thought—in the light of the magnificent work being done in the schools about which I was asked—that we should introduce young people to the live arts.
Those are the sorts of considerations that will be in people's minds, and I hope that the debate has gone some way to clarifying the thoughts that lie behind the request made. In my personal experience, this initiative by my noble Friend has met with substantial approval. I believe that it will be possible for his consultations to be fruitful and for the relationship between the Minister for the time being and the Arts Council to be unimpaired and for its work to continue as usefully as in the past.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) I hope that the House will

not mind if I remind it that there are 28 names down of Members seeking to raise subjects. Obviously all will not be able to do so but it would be in the interests of all if speeches could be kept as short as humanly possible. I say that with some diffidence because I know that the next subject is a burning issue in the Greater London area and one that could occupy hon. Members for many days. I hope that hon. Members will take my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (GREATER LONDON)

3.38 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): I shall try to respond to your invitation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I raise on the appropriate Vote the Government's responsibility for housing in Greater London, a matter which is of interest to hon. Members on all sides.
The problem of housing in London remains the greatest curse of our capital city. Homelessness, overcrowded housing conditions, unfit dwellings and a housing shortage constitute the current plague of London. It is a plague that seems to be without cure and to increase in virulence year by year. The total despair, degredation and unhappiness which poor housing causes defies description. This is a plague which debilitates and shames London and must be stamped out. That is where the responsibility of government, central and local, lies.
To illustrate the total of the problem, of 2,600,000 households in London 204,000 share a dwelling and 186,000 live in conditions where there is more than one person to a room. One family in 13 do not have the privacy of their own home and have to spend much of their lives in conditions where the noise of one household in the dwelling impinges on another, and we all know the nuisance of the television turned on too loud and of waiting for the second boot to fall to the floor above, of children to live where there are several families in a single house and the enormous problems of sharing a kitchen, often leading not only to unpleasantness but to physical violence.
If one uses the South Eastern region unfitness figure of 18 per cent., of the total of 2,200,000 houses in London there


are 380,000 houses unfit, but the Inner London Borough of Lambeth carried out a survey of that typical Inner London borough and discovered that 60 per cent. of dwellings in Lambeth were unfit.
Even if one takes the optimistic figure and projects the South-East Region figure, one finds 1,000,000 people in the capital in unfit accommodation. If one packed every football ground in London with people living in unfit dwellings, there would be queues outside waiting to get in.
There are almost 200,000 families on waiting lists, and that is 800,000 men, women, and children, on the waiting lists of the London borough. Those statistics underestimate the total demand for housing, the total need. An investigation in Lambeth showed that only 14 per cent. of families in housing need went on the housing register, so that the figure of 200,000 on the list is probably optimistic. If one puts the figure in a modest light, one family in ten is in an almost hopeless queue at the local town hall. One should add to that 8,000 families registered as homeless, which represents less than the total because some will not register, but stay on stations, stay with relatives and sometimes go from place to place.
The total of these figures shows a problem of almost unbelievable magnitude in the 1970s. Unfortunately, estimates of deficiency in London housing grow worse and not better. Housing list figures and other estimates of London housing deficiencies some years ago showed a deficiency of 200,000 dwellings.
The South-East Regional Economic Planning Council estimated in 1967 that, in addition to the slum clearance programme, the deficiency for London was 200,000. I thought that figure was optimistic and now the chairman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee puts the figure at 365,000. Projecting the South-East Region figure for 1968, the figure for the whole region is 380,000. I think that is an underestimate and that the figure is now near or higher than 400,000. That is a terrifying total, and I do not think the word "terrifying" is too dramatic, but if the problem is terrifying and growing, then at least we expect that urgency should be the watchword of the Government and of local authorities

which rely on Government subsidies to meet the challenge. But in many quarters there is no sense of urgency and local authorities have a sense of complacency which would have astounded even Nero.
With the active encouragement at one time of the Secretary of State for the Environment, many local authorities are turning a crisis into a catastrophe. It was the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) who told the chairmen of Conservative housing authorities that they should no longer go on building council houses for all sorts of seemingly good purposes, and many local authorities, particularly those in London, took him at his word. It is true that in 1970 a record number for Greater London of 36,556 dwellings was completed. But that is a reflection of the efforts in housing construction which were begun about three years ago and, therefore, it is not the completions figure which is welcome, and which is a record, that one needs to consider but the starts figure. It is in this figure that one sees the turning of a crisis into a catastrophe.
In 1969 the completions figure for the whole of London, including private dwellings, was 33,303. But the starts figure was down to 31,848. If one takes the local authority public sector completions and starts, in 1969 the completions were 23,013, but the starts were only 22,502—not a very large discrepancy, but it gets worse as one sees the effects of Tory local authorities beginning to gather. In the first quarter of 1970 the completions were 6,449, but the starts were only 3,379. The total for the first three-quarters of 1970 was 19,000 completions and 16,000 starts. Therefore, there was a very worrying drop in the number of houses started. That is the thing which worries people concerned about housing in London.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury): Is my hon. Friend aware that I put a Question to the Department for the Environment on this matter and I was told that the Department is not interested in starts and has no record of starts?

Mr. Fraser: That surprises me, because the figures are published. Perhaps the Department does not want to know about the figures rather than admitting the figures are available because anyone


with any connection with the Department knows that the figures can be obtained by telephone from the local authorities.
These are worrying figures when we need to go on increasing the supply of housing in Greater London. That is bad enough. Local authorities have taken Ministers at their word, and some of them have taken them too literally.
These figures—the degree of need, and the drop in starts—give cause for grave anxiety; but worse still is the proposed cut in housing subsidies of about £200 million a year. Many London boroughs are hard pressed. Rents are not low in local authority houses in London. Many authorities are saying publicly—and the Minister must realise this when he goes round the London boroughs—that they need a greater supply of money from central Government. In my borough there is a deficit of almost £2 million a year on the rates. In Southwark it is nearly £3 million a year. A cut in housing subsidies would have the effect of cutting the programme. What is worse, the Government do not only propose a cut in the subsidies; what is left over is to be shared between the public sector and the subsidising of private tenants. I do not discuss that matter now, but even less money will be made available as a result of the cut in housing subsidies to provide for the housing so badly needed in London.
The Government cannot go on pretending that council housing in an area like London should be just for the sick, aged and handicapped. Anybody who has any inkling of London's housing problem will know that it is shared by a substantial mass of London's population. It is a problem, not only of the sick, aged or handicapped, but of newly married couples, of people trying to bring up a family in decent conditions, of finding accommodation for children to do their homework. It is a massive problem and it needs a solution of massive proportions.
We need a programme of construction. We need a strategy for the whole of London. I will illustrate what I mean by this. One can take six Outer London boroughs, all Conservative controlled, and look at their under-construction figures in 1970 as published in the—I think it was—November Journal of

Housing Statistics. Let us take Bexley, the seat of the Prime Minister, a borough, incidentally, which failed to start even one single public dwelling-house in the first nine months of 1969. Let us look at the figure of houses under construction: 229. Or Harrow, which, I think, sports another Minister: 135 under construction. Or Havering, 261; Hillingdon, 232; Kingston-upon-Thames, 325; and Croydon which, I think, sports a Whip, 145. That is, six Conservative Outer London boroughs have under construction at the moment a total of 1,327 dwellings. Southwark, under Labour control, has 4,209, and has much less land and much fewer resources. It has done three times as well as six Outer London Conservative councils which have less of a problem. Or Hackney, which has under construction 2,738; and Wandsworth has 2,285; and Lambeth, 1,845.
How can we say we have a strategy in London when six Conservative boroughs with more land to start with, and less demand upon their resources, cannot even between them match the achievement of one Inner London borough? Till we resolve to treat the problem of London's housing as one problem for the whole of the Metropolis we are not going to solve it.
I cannot pass these figures without mentioning a borough which deserves I do not know whether one would call it the Walker Cup or the Selsdon Trophy—the Conservative Borough of Sutton, which, according to the latest statistics, took the Minister of Housing quite literally and has started in the first nine months of 1970 minus one house! It really took the Minister at his word.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Would my hon. Friend recall that in the proposed transfer of G.L.C. property Sutton gets a quite substantial holding of desirable maisons and that the intention is to destroy them and sell the land so that developers can build some other type of property on the site?

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate that.
If we are to solve the problem of London's housing we must, as it were, make war upon the problem; it has to be tackled as though it were a battle. All the efforts must be co-ordinated. It is no good having 33 divisional commanders, some, like the ones at Sutton,


acting as saboteurs. The problem must be treated as one for London as a whole. That is why the question of transferring housing is so important; if we transfer it to local authorities the houses will no longer be available to serve the needs of London as a whole, and that will be a great disservice to many families now on housing waiting lists. It is really a scandal that London can be split up into 33 different areas, each one acting, very largely, independently. One has got to have a housing list for the whole of London, with allocations as between one borough and another. Southwark has an enormous housing problem. There is no reason at all why boroughs such as Sutton or Croydon should not act together in housing programmes for boroughs wanting to be helped like mine at Lambeth. Croydon is but a few yards from the edge of my constituency. How can it be said that in London, which has an enormous problem, one borough should not help another?
The G.L.C. is not doing its job properly. It is not building in the Outer London boroughs; it has not asked the Minister to exercise his powers to allow it to build in Outer London where local authorities do not want it to build. We need a central authority, central direction, to solve the problem.
The Inner London boroughs have the biggest problems. Many are running out of land. Many run huge losses on developments both in money terms and in the numbers of dwellings provided. Every time they clear a site they decant, and there are often less dwellings provided after redevelopment than before. To allow other boroughs to take the cynical view that Central London's problem must be left to it alone just simply is not good enough.
I will illustrate my point by comparison again. Lambeth, which stands next to Croydon, started 1,248 houses in the first nine months of 1970. Next door, a borough which could be helping to share the problem, started 155. Wandsworth started 1,168; Kingston, next door, available to help, started 14 houses. How any member of a housing committee can stand up in public and confess to those figures I do not understand.
The G.L.C. must build more houses. Its figures have dropped back appallingly; it does not provide nearly enough to meet

the problem with which it is faced. We need a general increase in the level of building in London.
The figures which I gave at the beginning of my speech are staggering enough, but set against housing achievements elsewhere they look worse. London builds about four new houses per year per thousand population. The figure of construction for the whole of the United Kingdom is about six houses per year per thousand population. The national figure for West Germany is about 10 houses per year per thousand population.
The magnitude of the housing problem in London is immense. Nobody can promise a new roof over the heads of all those who have waited so long. The least that the Government can do, with the immense resources at their command, is to replace despair with hope. I hope that we shall see a directive to the local authorities of London and a plan and strategy for the whole of the Metropolis to remove this slur and shame which has existed for far too long.

3.58 a.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in a wide ranging speech, has covered much of the aspects of London's housing problem with which I should have liked to deal.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I will be brief because, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has pointed out, there are a number of debates yet to come and many hon. Members still wishing to take part in them.
We have heard that London's housing is fraught with problems, many of which will be dealt with in future debates in some of which I hope to participate if I am fortunate to be called.
At this late hour I will confine myself to one aspect of London's housing problem which is causing me concern. I refer to the operation, certainly in my constituency, of the improvement grant scheme. I know that other London Members are similarly worried about this problem.
I will illustrate the type of case which frequently arises in surgeries in the London area. It is not, unfortunately, an isolated case, nor as exaggerated as it may appear when first heard.


Controlled tenants must be middle aged or elderly. There can be no such thing as a young controlled tenant, certainly in my area, through the operation of the 1957 Rent Act. Because of their age and employment situation, which is precarious and is becoming more so as the Government's policy unfolds, or because of their social security position, these people are especially vulnerable to pressures from landlords and some councils over improvement grants.
I know one elderly couple who, having unsuccessfully asked their landlord's agent to fix a faulty window, were rightly advised to ask the local health inspector to view the property. He inspects the window and probably the rest of the flat, thereby finding many more defects, including perhaps damp or dry rot. He discovers that there is no bathroom or hot water and that the toilet is outside. With the best motives, he notifies the landlord of the situation, and advises him of the possibilities of an improvement scheme.
He may serve a statutory notice, although that does not always follow at this stage. But he may advise the landlord to visit the improvement specialist, which many councils are now setting up. The landlord discovers that it is possible to include the statutory repairs in an overall improvement scheme, thus qualifying for a substantial public grant and a rent increase as well. He is advised, no doubt, of the need to discuss this with the tenants and the rent officer.
Many landlords faithfully and religiously carry out these instructions, resulting in a much improved house and satisfied tenants, but others do not take this trouble. The next the unfortunate tenants hear is in an official letter from the town hall about improvement grants, often including the green booklet about their rights. They may later receive a solicitors' letter from the landlord, telling of his intentions, and outlining the procedures for agreeing a fair rent. I have a case in hand where the landlord estimated a rent and then, in advance of discussions, charged it. This situation should never have been allowed to arise.
The receipt of an official-looking document can have extremely worrying effects on old people. They shy away from

discussing these issues with what they regard as officialdom and consult neighbours, friends or relatives, which often results in their receiving the wrong information. I had a case recently where the landlord was able to gain possession of a flat, and the council was obliged to rehouse the tenant. Financial inducements are often offered to controlled tenants to vacate property. In my experience these sums range from £100 to £2,150. But what good is even £2,150 to an old-age pensioner who is trying to find accommodation in Central London? Unfortunately people are often led to believe that they are being offered a reasonable deal.
If the landlord is successful, his property will be improved at public expense, the tenancy will come out of control and he can relet at a much higher rent. The improved property cannot be let to those most in need and certainly not to the people who were previously in occupation. Indeed, there appears to be nothing to stop a landlord from selling the improved property almost as soon as it is improved. This cannot be right.

Mr. Ronald Brown: If one can believe rumours circulating about the Francis Committee, we will be faced with a situation in which it will be proposed to take all property of about £250 rateable value out of control.

Mr. Stallard: I hope that all these matters will be thoroughly debated when the Francis Committee's report is presented.
One can argue that improvement grants are being abused and that they are sometimes used in lieu of carrying out statutory repairs under the various housing and health Measures. I am not concerned at this stage to apportion blame. Too many loopholes exist and we must fill them. I might argue that hon. Gentlemen opposite are to blame because of their desire to get as many houses as possible out of control, to encourage councils to boost their statistics and prove that they have made excellent improvements, listing them all as statistics irrespective of people. One could go on developing similar arguments, but I am here not concerned so much with whose fault it is as with what has gone wrong and how, and how to put it right.


I hope that the Minister will thoroughly investigate the position in London, and that he may be able to issue a circular in the interim advising local authorities of their responsibilities in regard to statutory repairs, and suggesting how they might improve their public relations with controlled tenants who find themselves in this difficult situation. Then, in the long run, we may be able to come forward with some positive amendments to the existing legislation and so avoid further abuse of the improvement grant scheme.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham): I am the third successive hon. Member whom you have called from the Labour side, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would have preferred to follow the usual fair practice of alternately calling hon. Members from the two sides. You are debarred from doing so by the fact that of the 47 Conservative Members who sit for London constituencies none apparently wishes to take part in this debate. Even allowing for the fact that some of them are Ministers, and are thereby debarred, it is still remarkable that not one Tory back bencher is present. I hope that the general public will not fail to notice this fact.
Since you have called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the particular aspect of housing in the Metropolis to which I should like to call attention is this. One fact that is true more or less of all great cities, but exceptionally true of the capital, is that in such a city there are a number of very wealthy and comfortably off people but that also, if the city's work is to be done, there are a number of people doing work which does not command very large incomes but who, somehow or other, have to live in the city, sometimes on land which at market prices would be extremely dear.
The public has been sharply reminded in recent months that there are such people as the postmen and the dustmen, that they have human needs like other people, and that they often find it extremely difficult to make ends meet. One of the reasons for that, if they live in London, is that the great purchasing power of the wealthier London citizens tends to thrust the price of houses up and up, and we are left with the question: where are those who do the work

in this great city—work of a kind which does not command large incomes—to live?
The answer in the last century was partly provided by private charities. One sees in parts of London, on sites that would normally be occupied by very highly rented property, some properties in which people of small or moderate incomes can live as a result of past private charities. But this kind of work, honourable as it was, is not big enough to meet the whole of the problem, and the only way in which one can meet it today is by having a substantial amount of council building for rent, because we surely ought to have grasped the fact by now that private enterprise will not now provide houses to let at rents which people of small or moderate incomes can pay.
It ought, therefore, to be an agreed objective of Government policy in the housing of the Metropolis to see that the supply of council houses for rent is stimulated rather than discouraged, and that the practice of selling council houses and thereby reducing the store of houses available to rent ought to be discouraged rather than encouraged. I am not now speaking of the country as a whole. I believe that it would be possible to produce some areas of the country where the sale of council houses or the production of houses by the council originally for sale might make sense. I doubt if there is a single borough of Greater London where this policy can make sense because of the overwhelming need to provide reasonable accommodation for people of small or moderate incomes.
As an example of this problem I quote the Borough of Hammersmith in which my constituency lies. For nearly the last three years Hammersmith has had a Conservative council. Before then it was the policy of the Labour council to build steadily and to buy properties for the use of people on the council waiting list. During the last three years building has languished, the policy of buying has been pretty well abandoned, and more and more people on the waiting list are getting advice from the council to the effect that there is a nice property for them if they can buy it for the price of £8,000 or that if they can pay a rent of £10 or £11 a week there may be something


suitable for them. Even with the working of a rebate scheme, the amount of rent that they are asked to pay bears less and less relation to what they could reasonably be expected to afford.
It seems to be the policy of the Hammersmith Council—I quote it merely as an example; I think that it is a fairly general policy, certainly in Inner London—to see this part of the Metropolis gradually handed over to comfortably off people buying houses at inflated prices or sometimes paying very high rents, and leaving working people with small or moderate incomes either to be pushed further and further out, with an agonising problem of the cost of travel to their work, or to be obliged to live in the oldest and least attractive quarters and be desperately overcrowded because they cannot afford enough room.
I believe that that is what is actually happening in a number of London boroughs. The Old Testament prophet said:
Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place.
This is the situation of more and more people of small or moderate incomes in London—there is no place left. This is bound to happen in a metropolis through the sheer pressure of market forces unless there is a deliberate Government policy to see that there is an adequate supply of houses to let at moderate rents.
I know very well that it is a good thing in many cases that people should own their own houses, but there are many people for whom, for a variety of reasons, this is neither a possible nor a desirable solution. It is extremely undesirable that people should be sometimes driven to become owner-occupiers and take on a burden beyond their means because it seems to be the only way of getting a roof over their heads.
Therefore, we are driven back again to the need for deliberate Government policy to see that there are sufficient houses available at moderate rents.
I have mentioned a local authority, but this debate is about the responsibility of the Government. I want to mention a few ways in which the Government can influence this problem, and, in so far as they can influence it, they are responsible for it if the problem is not solved.
In any housing legislation which the Government bring before this Parliament, if they are concerned for the London problem they will see that that legislation is of a character which promotes council building and which discourages, except in a few and exceptional circumstances, the sale of council houses. As far as we understand, this is not the Government's philosophy. I think that if they will look at the real facts of London, they may find cause to change their thinking on this subject.
Second, they can influence the matter by the giving or withholding in some cases of permission to use land. Again, the Borough of Hammersmith had in its possession land which I think had previously been railway land and required ministerial permission for the way it was to use it. It proposed originally to use the land almost entirely for better-off people and for commercial purposes. To my great pleasure, my right hon. Friend, Mr. Greenwood, as he then was, declined to let that authority use it in that way. It has now produced a modified but still unsatisfactory scheme, and I am sorry to say that the present Government seem to be allowing it to get away with it.
Third, as we all know, there are a great many ways in which Governments can make their wishes known to councils and exercise considerable influence on the general direction of council policy. But which way are the present Government going to bring their influence to bear?
There is a fourth way in which the Government can help the London housing problem, and that is by ensuring the continuance of the policy of the last Government, of preventing the intolerable multiplication of jobs in London which attracts the population in from all over the country. It was the last Government who put a halt to the continual multiplication of office jobs in London. Before my party came into power we were told that it was administratively impossible to do that. In fact, we showed that it could be done. The latest figures of population show, fortunately, that there is at last some halt to the pouring in of population from other parts of the Kingdom to London. But this is something which the Government ought always to watch.


A fifth way in which the Government can influence the matter is that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) when he spoke of a London strategy. One of the evils of the London Government Act which the last Conservative Government introduced was that it weakened the possibility of an all-London strategy for housing. This was partly because of their detestation of the old Labour London County Council, and anything which reduced the power at the centre was, in the eyes of that Government, good. Unhappily, the result of this has been that those more fortunate boroughs in London with a fair amount of space where there might be building are in a position to resist any suggestion that some of their space might be used to help their poorer and overcrowded fellow Londoners in the less fortunate districts of the Metropolis. Somehow or other the Government have got to put this right. My hon. Friend gave examples, comparing some of the more fortunate and less fortunate boroughs.
I think I have said enought to suggest that there is a problem here which, although it has to be dealt with by local authorities, is also a problem for which the Government cannot escape responsibility. There are several ways in which the Government could be helpful. If they are not helpful, the position of people of small and moderate incomes in London—I think particularly of inner London—will become more desperate, and the Government ought to pay attention to this before it is too late.

4.25 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for painting a general picture, and to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) for outlining the particular problems that they spoke about.
I want to do three things in my speech —to look at the question in relation to the homeless as well as to housing, to look a little more closely at the sort of internal market mechanism in London to which my right hon. Friend referred, and to match some of the policies we have heard about from the Government with

the needs, as I see them, and to test how far they will meet the present problem.
The debate follows to some extent the Adjournment debate on 17th December last year, in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who is to reply also took part.
The points I wish to make have been raised mainly at constituency surgery. They are definitely from what is called in journalistic language the grass roots. I shall be as brief as possible, but I make no apology for putting these points in the way I do, because the problem is one of the great problems of this country. What is happening in London is happening to a smaller extent in other urban centres, and if we can get on top of the problem in London we might do something for the rest of the country too.
In the debate in December the Under-Secretary said that he hoped that the Greve Report would be ready in mid-January and would be published shortly afterwards. We have not yet had the report, and a number of other reports to which I shall refer later. But rumours have circulated in Sunday newspapers and elsewhere of what those reports contain, and there have been increasing rumours of the numbers of homeless in London. In a Written Answer on 11th December, 1970, the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
My information relates to families in temporary accommodation maintained by local authorities. Returns from authorities in England and Wales … gave a total of 4,860 families … in temporary accommodation." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 205.]
Yet a Written Answer yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) showed that the number of such people in London alone was 12,866. I know that the total for the nation was of families, but, even allowing 4·5 people per family, that gives a total for the nation of 20,000, compared with 12,000 in London today in the accommodation referred to.
The figures must be treated with caution. Statistics can be misleading. I shall refer to one or two of the figures given yesterday, because they deserve a great deal more publicity than they will probably get in a Written Answer. First, the numbers for the London Borough of


Islington have risen from 621 in 1965 to 1,930 on 30th September, 1970. That is a very big increase. The London Borough of Bexley has been mentioned. On 31st December, 1965, there were no people in that borough in local authority temporary accommodation, but on 30th September, 1970, there were 238.
It is worth noting that the London Borough of Bexley did not see fit to give evidence for the London Boroughs Association bulk evidence to the Francis Committee on the ground that there was not much rented accommodation in that borough. It seems to have a homeless problem, nevertheless, and I am sorry that it did not give evidence to that important Committee, whose report we anxiously await.
Those figures may be only partial. Various voluntary agencies have suggested that the numbers of people who apply to local authorities—are greater than the number accepted. It is suggested that in Inner London those accepted are only one in four and in Outer London one in seven. I have no means of checking those figures. The Government and the local authorities should tell us more about this. One of the voluntary agencies—Shelter—is of opinion that the other three and the other six families are, somehow, either absorbed with relatives, move out of London or are housed elsewhere. I admit that these figures may be misleading, because if a good borough provides accommodation it may be filled up. The global figure of 12,000 does not indicate the numbers coming in, because one must also look at the rate of turnover.
We know some of the reasons why people are evicted. Often, they are legally evicted from furnished accommodation. They may be illegal tenants in the sense that they have no rent book. The landlord might, quite properly, require the accommodation for his own family and, therefore, he legally requires the tenants to move. They may be in arrear with rent, which is a big problem, with associated social difficulties. There are all sorts of other reasons as well. One of the terrible features, however, is that illegal evictions are on the increase. Beneath this is the vast amount of harass-

ment which it is difficult to pin down and prosecute.
The Greater London Council Annual Abstract of Statistics for 1968 dealt with the figures of two years ago. For the whole of Greater London in that year, there were 8,000 applications by families to the London boroughs for temporary accommodation. One-quarter of them, or 2,000, came because of court orders, because the court legally evicted them. One thousand were in unauthorised occupation. What is the position today? Has it become worse? Can we be given the figures, so that the rumours which circulate in the Press can be either discounted or shown to be correct?
On 2nd February I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment may not be able to answer for his right hon. Friend, although I told the Department that I proposed to raise this matter on an associated Vote. On that date the Secretary of State for Social Services told me that he was setting up a working party to consider steps to be taken with regard to the problems of homelessness in London. The following week, in a Written Question, I invited the Secretary of State to tell us who would be members of the working party, when it would publish its results and what additional evidence it would take on homelessness in London in addition to that already contained in published reports. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State could only say
I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 2nd February." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 43.]
That is unfortunate, because it shows that while the Government are doing something, they have done it rather late. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Social Services has not been able to give us more details of this most important working party, in whose activity, when it becomes better known, there will be great interest.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Has my hon. Friend postulated a reason why the Department went ahead in setting up a working party on which, apparently, none of the local authorities and none of the local authority associations have been


invited to serve? Who is this high-powered working party which is to find more information than we have been able to get?

Mr. Spearing: I do not know whether it is high-powered. I hope that it is, but we cannot tell, because we do not know who is giving evidence and who are the members. I hope that we can soon get an answer and that, if necessary, the Minister will make a statement in the House. Not only is it a matter for London, but it creates great interest, quite properly, in the rest of the country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham spoke about the displacement of population. One of the anomalies in London is that whilst there is a declining population, with an even faster decline in the inner parts, they are the very places where there is increased housing stress. However, the situation is not so anomalous when one realises that, while the population is going down, numbers of households are increasing. That can be understood when one takes into account rising standards of living of some people.
It was my right hon. Friend who put his finger on the spot when he spoke about market forces. We all know what happens in London. Over the years, those of us who live here have seen it happening faster and faster. People have different salaries and different social wants. Single people living together in flats in inner London can afford relatively high rents. So can people with large salaries. But the man who has to keep a wife and family on a relatively low salary is in direct competition with them. That is where the trouble starts.
While the numbers may be declining, we have a changing social and occupational structure of the population in inner London. I commend this point to the Minister and to the members of the working party set up by his right hon. Friend, assuming that it has not occured to them already. No doubt if they make arrangements to get the census figures when they become available, the trends for 1961, 1966 and 1971 will pinpoint what is happening.
The high-salaried occupations to which my right hon. Friend referred are probably on the increase in London. The city is a great centre for growth indus-

tries, the communications industries, the media of all sorts, the headquarters of many different types of firms, national and international, including those involved in new techniques like computers. One of the biggest industries in London is what might be termed the academic industry. There are many new academic occupations. People with high incomes come here from abroad, many of whom receive direct or indirect assistance to meet their housing needs. The result is that the market is inflated, and the competition to which my right hon. Friend referred is becoming even greater.
The word "competition" is a favourite among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I suggest that they look at it more objectively than they have before. The inevitable consequence is what might be called a housing vortex in London, where the competition is faster and the rate of displacement is even greater. My right hon. Friend referred to the situation where older houses which years ago would have been occupied by relatively large numbers of people on low incomes are now being "tarted up" and are changing hands at inflated figures. We have seen this happening more and more in the last 10 years. What are we to expect in the next 30?
We have great difficulty in Ealing. People who have lived in the area for many years find that they cannot get accommodation within their means. When they apply to the borough, they have to undergo a means test, and it is set at such a level that it excludes those who are deemed capable of purchasing their own homes. In practical terms, this leaves a gap. While people may be deemed capable of purchasing their own homes, and in theory they may be able to, building societies turn them down when they apply. A constituent of mine was offered the modest house in which he lived as a tenant at a price £1,000 below the market value. He could not get a mortgage. The result was that he was liable to come under a new landlord, and he feared that he might be evicted from the house which had actually been offered to him for sale.
I refer to mortgages. We hear, and are pleased to hear sometimes, that the global total of mortgages over the country is going up, but if hon. Members


refer to Social Trends, 1970, they will see a table showing that in 1968 no less than 37 per cent. of those taking up mortgages were already owner-occupiers in another property. I say "No less than 37 per cent.", because 18 per cent. had no stated previous ownership, and the percentage might therefore be 40 or more.
This percentage figure does not take account of value, and it is possible that more than half the moneys advanced by the building societies were to those people who wanted a second mortgage to get a second house. If we are to use private purchase properly, and the Labour Party believes in all types of occupation and ownership, particularly in London, we have to see whether these funds are being used effectively.
Because of all these difficulties, we have in London what might be described as a housing musical chairs, but the pace is increasing because of the effects of inflation and social factors. Every time there is one house fewer, the homeless and those under pressure suffer. But when the music stops, it is not those who by chance happen to be by the empty chair who get it; it is those who already have the capital saved up, those on high incomes and those coming in from outside who are able to purchase homes for themselves. What happens is that the people already in London, many of them living here, many who on first getting married went into unfurnished, or, more usually, furnished accommodation, find, as in the famous "Cathy Come Home" film, that as their families grow they are caught and drawn up into the vortex in which they could do little.
The situation is even worse than hon. Members may realise. Some of the political friends of hon. Members opposite have been giving evidence to the Francis Committee via the London Boroughs Association. Not only is there harassment, not only is there the difficulty with furnished accommodation which we all know about, but there is evidence of unlawful eviction. The London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea says:
Eviction is an offence which takes place with impunity and the police appear to lack adequate powers to deal effectively with the distress caused".

Hammersmith says:
Unlawful evictions still take place. The legislation to deal with this matter is now effective as it should be.
Westminster says:
Attention is drawn to the ease with which a furnished tenant may be evicted by the simple expedient of locking the door particularly in the case of properties where the landlord does not reside on the premises".
Havering says:
It is very difficult if not impossible to prevent a landlord from effecting an unlawful eviction if he is determined to do so".
It is the view of many people in London that the situation there is worse than ever it was at the time of the Milner Holland Report.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend has referred to the London Boroughs Association. Is he aware that the evidence which he has quoted would never have been given to the Francis Committee if the Tory majority had had its way, and it was only after a long argument that it was decided to send the evidence to the Francis Committee?

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. I am shocked to think that there was any debate about providing this evidence to any committee looking into the facts. I am sorry to hear that some boroughs were not willing for these facts to go forward.
What we are dealing with in London is not just a housing problem; it is housing as an integral part of planning. Across the river there is an inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan. Some of the things that have come out there have been concerned with employment. I suggest that when the hon. Gentleman looks into this he should tie up not just housing but the whole strategy of employment and associated salary levels. If this vortex of which I have spoken gets faster with more and more people coming in from all over the place, with the market forces getting stronger, then we will have to take a look at our strategy.
In Opposition the Conservative Party tended to sabotage the policy of the last Government, and there is ample evidence of that. In my constituency, starts in the first nine months of 1970 were 22. There were another 21 for public sector, non-council, giving a total of 42 for the borough. That gives my constituency 10.


That is the sort of problem we are up against showing the sabotage of the encouragement given by the last Government in solving this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood made great play about this dichotomy over the inner and outer boroughs of London. The Government have a policy for this, and we are glad to hear about that. The Secretary of State for the Environment went on a Lambeth Walk and made some pronouncements, and we look forward to seeing what he will do to persuade these outer London boroughs to accept a larger proportion of council building. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham mentioned that in the Inner London boroughs there are people with higher incomes taking over and going into areas which previously they had not looked at. If this is happening, then, on a quid pro quo basis, why cannot the opposite happen in the Harrows, Croydons and Ealings?
The Francis Committee—and this is just a Press rumour—is recommending decontrol of a certain number of controlled tenancies. This will mean that the people concerned will be tipped into the vortex which means that more will be pushed out, adding to the other 12,000. It is also suggested that there would be a defreeze on registered tenancies. If the Government are to act upon these recommendations, they have to look at the implications in the same light as my hon. Friends and I have done. If they act upon this recommendation without looking at the consequences the harvest will be a bitter one.
The hon. Gentleman said in no uncertain terms in HANSARD on 17th December last:
What we want to do. above all, is to have a fair rental policy in both the private and public sector …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1708.]
What does a fair rental policy mean. To whom is it fair?
Is it fair to the person who is putting capital out—in other words men with high rates of pay—or is it fair to those with a low incomes—the dustman, the bus driver, the electrical power worker? My hon. Friend mentioned that if it is to be fair, a massive financial programme will have to be instituted in opposition to the trend in this country

over the last 50-60 years. If support is to be for people rather than property as indicated in Government policy, there has to be a system of rebates or allowances. The Government claim that that is what they are going to do, but according to the Government's new policies on public spending, the total spending on housing will be £100 million to £200 million less. If so, where will the rebates come from? Supposing the number qualifying for rebates is higher than they think, will the money come from the rates or from the Exchequer?
These are some of the things people are asking about Government policy. If the money is to come from the rates, there will be a great disequilibrium and if it is to come from the Exchequer how will the Government spend £100 million or £200 million less?
In London, in the Borough of Barking, 67 per cent. of dwellings are under the local authority and in Tower Hamlets 57 per cent. If the rebate comes off the rates there the situation will be quite impossible.
If the Government introduce more of a free market system, how will it help with what my hon. Friend rightly called the utterly desperate situation in London? Let us see that the free market is going to meet some of the problems we have been talking about.
The Secretary of State for the Environment wrote in a "Shelter" newsletter article last autumn:
What needs to be done is to see that each family prosperous enough to do so devotes a good proportion of its income to better housing, leaving the Government and the Local Government to make sure that those now bady housed and unable to provide themselves with tolerable housing conditions are given the help and assistance that is required.
What does the Secretary of State mean by "a good proportion"? Has he not forgotten that the lower the income of the person, generally the higher the proportion he has to give to housing and that if one increases people's living standards, a marginally lower proportion has to be spent on decent housing conditions?
It seems that the Secretary of State was not clear what he was at. In the preface to the Conservative election manifesto last June the Prime Minister wrote that the Government should deal


honestly and openly with the House of Commons, the Press and the public. Some of the questions asked require decent, honest and open answers.
Apart from the general questions, I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer these particular questions: When will the Greve, Cohen and Francis Reports be published? Can he answer my questions, put on 8th February, about the Working Party on London's homeless? Who will be on it, what evidence will be given and when will the report be published? I now add a fourth question: what are its terms of reference?
Will the Minister ensure that the powers made available by the Labour Government in various housing Acts for local authorities to look at housing as a comprehensive study in their areas are used?
Will the Minister investigate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and I have described as the London vortex, particularly the effect on workers such as those in London Transport, Post Office and power stations? London depends on people in this type of occupation and I use them as examples—particularly those who are getting married at 25 and are in the housing market.
In "A Better Tomorrow" we read that
courage and intellectual honesty are essential qualities in politics".
Those were the words of the Prime Minister, who said at Eastbourne recently that the Government must get rid of their illusions.
I hope that, with its traditional policy of competition on which it is a great expert, the Conservative Party will have a look at competition in housing in London and the effects it is having now and will have in future if it is not controlled and directed in more constructive ways. If it does not do that. there will be incoherent, inarticulate and many protests coming from a large number of people who are already fed up with democratic government as we know it today and as they have experienced it. There will be a further erosion of confidence in parliamentary procedures. I look forward to the precepts of the Prime Minister, admirably expressed in the manifesto, being put into action by the Government in respect of housing problems in London.

4.56 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury): Regrettably, my constituency is covered by three authorities for housing, each Conservative controlled, each designing its policies to make sure that it builds as few houses as possible. The Greater London Council is making it clear that its purpose in life is not to build any houses at all. It is pursuing as fast as it can go the transfer of housing from itself to the London boroughs.
The London Borough of Hackney is an area which is grossly overcrowded and causes considerable problems. I have frequently written to the Hackney Borough Council about cases. I have written to the Minister and his predecessor on many occasions. I wish to give, not a one-off, unusual example, but a typical example of a man, his wife, son and six daughters. They have three bedrooms. The ages of the children range from a boy of 21 and girls of 18, 17, 16, 14, 12 and a younger one. I am told in a letter from the housing manager:
The family, as you will know from previous correspondence, occupies three-bedroom property without modern amenities. The overall points award, however, only enables the case to be included in category B of the waiting list, and as you will know from previous correspondence, I am not yet in a position to deal with applications listed in category B of the waiting list.
I do not know for how much longer the family is expected to remain in category B.
Another typical case has been subjected to lengthy correspondence between the Hackney Borough Council and myself. It concerns a man, his wife and six children —three sons aged 19, 17 and six and three daughters aged 15, 10½ and three. They all live in four rooms. I have been to visit the rooms. The word "room" is a misnomer. One cannot open one door without closing another to get through, but the accommodation is technically four rooms. There is no bathroom. They have exclusive use of a toilet, but it is at the end of the garden.
The Hackney Borough Council writes:
The difficult circumstances under which this family is living are fully appreciated and have been adequately reflected in the points value of the application, which has been placed in category B requiring a five-bedroom unit of accommodation. As you are already aware, this Council has extremely heavy rehousing and other commitments, which means that only a small number of applicants can be


housed from the waiting list. There is also a number of applicants on the waiting list in the same bedroom group with a higher points value who, in all fairness, must receive prior consideration and there is little prospect, therefore, of my being in a position to deal with this application in the foreseeable future".
That was from Hackney. So I proceeded to the G.L.C. valuer, and got a reply which told me that Ormsby Street area, in which the family was located, was the subject of a clearance order known as the Shap Street area. I was told:
It will probably be two or three years before rehousing from this area will begin.
So I went back to Hackney and said, "You cannot leave this family in these conditions for another two or three years. "The reply was, "It is not our job. This is a matter for the G.L.C." The Minister will be aware that the G.L.C. is not a housing authority as such, only for its own purposes or for nominations from housing authorities. Hackney knew and understood all about that case, though. It is deplorable that that family should be in category B and nothing done about it.
In 1965 the authority was doing some housing, it is true, but there occurred in 1968 what I regard as a disaster. The council had been planning, acquiring land and building 2,000 units, but in 1968 the council's political control was changed, and the new council decided, notwithstanding all the problems, that it would cut back from the programme of 2,000 units a year to only 600. There is no guarantee that it will ever build 600.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State because I know, from information given to me, that he himself is seized of the very point I am making and I understand he went to Hackney and gave the council a talking to. That is to his credit. I know the difficulties, and I do not want to exacerbate the situation in political terms, but I must draw attention to the fact that the council was aware of all this before ever the hon. Gentleman went to see the council. It has no intention, it has never had the intention, to address itself to the housing problems facing Hackney.
It is a disaster that it has not only refused to tackle the housing problem but has divested itself of as much land as was assembled by its predecessors. I hope that in May there will be a change

of political control in Hackney, but even if there is, my colleagues in the borough will be faced with the almost impossible task of trying once again to assemble land in order to put forward a programme which will marry up to the demands I have indicated by mentioning those two typical cases.
My colleagues will also be faced with the difficulty that was originally there before 1964, because the then Government were refusing to give any help whatsoever to local authorities. The Minister will, no doubt, be aware that the Government redevised the subsidies way back in 1957, and refashioned them by reducing them to zero for general housing needs. It was only as the General Election of 1964 approached that they decided, about 1962, to re-establish subsidy for general housing, and it amounted to £24 a unit. That made it impossible for the boroughs of London to address themselves to the problem as well as they would have otherwise done. The Labour Government were elected in 1964, and by 1965 housing authorities were obtaining £250 a unit in subsidy. That was an incentive and a help from a Government who understood the problem, and the boroughs went ahead assembling their land as I have mentioned.
I am sure that my hon. Friend was right to quote the attitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has taken time to deny that that is what he said or meant to say; but there is clear evidence that people in places like Hackney believed that that was what he said, whether he said it or not. It is no use the Minister denying that he said it. What is more important is that people following him thought that he said it and acted upon it.
Hackney is a classic example. The Minister has been there, so he knows that I am not exaggerating. I have produced evidence to the Department. I have called for a public inquiry. I think that the housing policy is a disgrace. I have called it from time to time almost chaotic, because the council has little or no idea what to do. But, above all, it has decided that it will not build council homes if it can avoid doing so.
I hope that the Minister will continue to put pressure upon that authority, because it is a disastrous situation. Until


the local authority is able and willing to build the necessary homes I, on behalf of my constituents, shall continue to press very hard indeed.
I emphasise that the cases which I have illustrated are not isolated examples. I can produce dozens. I have met the chairman and officials of the housing committee. We keep arguing. I cannot even get answers from them now; they just will not take the trouble to reply. I have spent hours with them discussing matters in detail. One can wait a year or more and still get no reply. They are so incompetent that they just do not bother to reply to arguments put before them. This is a serious matter which needs to be watched closely. Local authorities just do not respond to any pressure from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
The boroughs are taking their example from the G.L.C. The boroughs are trying to obtain an interview with Mr. Plummer of the Greater London Council about concessionary fares. It is like trying to get an interview with Her Majesty. I think that he believes he is even higher than Her Majesty in terms of trying to get an appointment. This is a second tier authority dealing with primary units of local government and the leader of that authority takes no notice; he completely and utterly refuses to see representatives of any London boroughs.
The London Boroughs Association desires to have words with his majesty. That association is composed of boroughs controlled by people who are his friends, but he puts a flea in their ear, too.
Who is this man? What does he do? I was delighted to see that he was not included in the Honours List. I anticipated having to call him Sir Desmond. I only hope that he is not being transferred to another place. However, I am bound to observe that if he did go, leaving the G.L.C., I should support his moving. It is a dangerous situation if public representatives are allowed to behave like this.
I should now like to turn to the other side of my constituency. Islington has a very good idea of how it desires to go on. It has done its best to get rid of the land which its predecessors had ac-

quired. Much the same thing happened there in 1968 as in Hackney: there was a change of political control. Islington did its best, in a more sophisticated way than Hackney, to divest itself of its property.
Classic examples are again available in the Minister's office, because of complaints which I have made on behalf of my constituents, of the authority offering land for sale. I raised this matter in the House a year or 18 months ago. The authority did a wonderful deal, which I still have not worked out, because it fell through as a result of my raising it in this House. It was a wonderful deal. Islington Borough Council owned land on which to build 21 one-bedroomed units. It decided against doing it, because it was a Conservative-controlled council, and its shadow Minister, as he was then, had advised it not to go in for council building. It decided to find a housing association to which it could hand it over.
The housing association had no money, so the council offered it the money if it would build to its standards, and then hand the units over to the council. I ask now, as I did then—who wins from that exercise? When there is an enormous housing department in the borough, how will this benefit my constituents who are living in the conditions I described?
The housing association itself was an even bigger issue. I discovered that seven of its eight committee members were members of a construction company and the eighth was the company's accountant. I pay credit to the then Ministry and to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson). I do not know where he leaned, but the deal did not go through. A lot of time was wasted when the desperation in my area is for one-bed-roomed units, because it is an ageing population. This site could have been made available much earlier.
The authority also decided to try to sell any houses it built. I have commented before on a block of flats put up for sale at £7,000 to £7,500—something modest, which my postmen or chaps working in the meat market can afford? Nine months later, the council have had to call it off, because it has not sold one. But all the ratepayers' money which was


spent did not provide the housing which was necessary while this silly, doctrinaire, party political issue was taken through by the council.
But the biggest issue of all was the block of flats which the G.L.C. and the Islington Borough Council wanted to pull down, Many such blocks need pulling down in my constituency and after great pressure from me on behalf of my constituents, the G.L.C. decided to put a compulsory purchase order on it. Because the owners objected, an inquiry was held in September, 1969, and its report submitted to the Minister in 1970. Anyone who knew anything about it was sure that the Minister's decision would have to be clear-cut, and that, by all reasonable standards, he would have to confirm the order. The G.L.C. and Islington Council, both Conservative-controlled—this is not a political issue—thought the same thing.
On 3rd August of last year the Minister took an extraordinary step. At 11 o'clock in the morning I was informed of the right hon. Gentleman's decision—if I may call it a decision. He said he would give the owners an opportunity to submit to the G.L.C. a scheme for improving these 100-year-old properties which had been described in the inspector's report as being unfit for human habitation.
I was obviously angry about this because, like the Islington Council and the others concerned, I thought it a silly non-decision. I could not understand why such a non-decision had been made and I made investigations. Nobody seemed to know very much about it. I began to use the agencies which all hon. Members have available to them when they want to know what is going on in their areas.
Gradually some facts began to filter through to me. For example, I discovered that the objectors to whom the Minister was giving special privileges, in that they were being asked to come forward with other proposals—proposals which had not been put forward at the public inquiry—had all sold out. In other words, I found that the freeholders had sold out to the G.L.C. between the time of the inquiry and 3rd August, 1970, the day on which the Minister made his peculiar decision or non-decision.
They were obviously satisfied that they had not made a case and that they could not possibly have done anything with

these old properties. As a result, they had decided to take their money and go. That was the position, and after being in control of these properties for many years, they had decided to get rid of them. But let us consider the circumstances.
On the morning of 3rd August, when the Minister made his peculiar decision, the leaseholders sold out to a speculator. One was left wondering who would purchase old junk like this, particularly when it was, we thought, about to be pulled down. In other words, why would a speculator wish to purchase property which it was everybody's expectation would be the subject of a compulsory purchase order which would be confirmed by the Minister?
I investigated further because I wanted to discover the firm of speculators. That in itself was quite an exercise. I went through about 40 names, but I kept coming back to one street, which was Maddox Street. I discovered that there were a series of what one might call £100 unit companies, many of which had gone broke and started up again. The names of three or four people kept cropping up.
I contacted the Minister and suggested that perhaps these were not the sort of people with whom we should be dealing, but the right hon. Gentleman's view was that these speculators could now be regarded by him as if they had been the original objectors. I was horrified at that and I wrote a series of letters to the Minister pointing out that all my researchers, into the 1957 Act and other related Acts, showed that the right hon. Gentleman had no grounds for the view he had taken in the matter. As far as I am aware there is nothing in the Act which allows the Minister to nominate a speculator who purchases property subsequent to a public inquiry, and before the Minister has made his decision, to be treated as though he were an original objector.
I again wrote to the Minister telling him that all he was trying to persuade me was that his lawyers were arguing that he had such rights. His lawyers may or may not have been right, but I submit that such rights as the Minister had must be enshrined in the Act. I do not think that he has the power to go outside the Act. I told the Minister that I thought that this was a case for


the Ombudsman to find out why the Minister was allowed to go outside the Act. We are now talking about August, 1970, when the speculator bought out the objector.
The speculator was allowed to produce proposals to the Greater London Council by 2nd November for redeveloping and refurbishing these old houses. Then the G.L.C. was expected to consider those proposals from the speculator by 18th December. I objected to that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I thought that it was the wrong thing to do, but I was happy at least to play along, because I thought that the inevitable view would be that the properties were not capable of being properly refurbished and modernised.
Then I discovered a most extraordinary thing. The speculator having sent plans to the G.L.C., the G.L.C. then had to send back its comments on the plan to the speculator, and the speculator then had to send back his comments on the G.L.C.'s comments to the Minister by 15th January. All this time my constituents were living in conditions described in the report as being unfit for human habitation.
The Minister was very kind, and I pay tribute to the fact that in our discussions he and his Department have been most helpful and cordial, but I am sure that I will be forgiven for feeling very strongly on the issue, because my constituents have been forced to live in the most appalling conditions. The speculator was unable to do the ordinary repair work, and the medical officer of health has had a tremendous job trying to get the properties made wind and weather proof.
I accept the argument: why spend money on the houses if they are eventually to be pulled down? Nevertheless, I suggest that it was an unusual situation for a speculator to be able to purchase property of such magnitude unless he had some idea that what eventually happened would take place, because I cannot conceive of anybody being ready to spend money on junk like this unless he was pretty sure he would get away with it.
In the end the Minister made the right judgment, and last Friday he decided

to confirm the compulsory purchase order. I am very grateful to him, and my constituents are delighted. In fact, if I were not here now taking part in this debate I would probably be drinking sherry with them, so delighted are they by the Minister's decision.
But is not this a case for the Ombudsman? A great matter of principle is involved. If any speculator has the right to do what this man did—purchase property on the theory that he would gain something—we are very unwisely opening an avenue, and I can find no authority for doing so.
I was concerned that in the judgment that the Minister gave in his quasi-judicial capacity he confirmed that payment should be made to allow for the fact that certain of the properties had been well maintained. To whom are these payments to be made—to the speculator, who has not spent a sou on the place, or to the tenant? If it is suggested that these payments should be made to the speculator, it is disgraceful. The argument that he has paid good money to purchase the properties and should get something back is untenable. The Minister should recognise that payments for well-maintained properties should go to the tenants who have spent considerable sums in keeping the properties in good repair.
I hope that the Minister will indicate how he sees the future of housing in London. Neither Islington nor Hackney is able to take any properties back from the G.L.C. They already have enough difficulties. The Minister knows that I have been concerned on the London Boroughs Association in the negotiations as regards transferring housing, parks and open spaces from the G.L.C. The Minister knows that I have made it clear from the outset that I regard the draft Order to transfer homes from the G.L.C. to the boroughs as wrong. It is wrong in principle and will be disastrous in practice, it will hinder housing development. In the two and a half years of negotiations no argument has been put to me to show how transferring those houses will enable the cases I have referred to tonight to be re-housed.
The other dangerous situation is on costs. After many months of arguing with my colleagues, they have obtained an equalisation scheme that sounds


plausible. I have shown time and time again that it is less than plausible and that boroughs such as Islington, Hackney and Southwark will suffer badly as a result. I have sought an assurance that there will be proper maintenance services available in boroughs that have refused to take their houses over. I believe that when the various units of the G.L.C. staff are handed over to the boroughs that have taken the houses over, those that have not taken houses over will find that there will be no staff available to carry out repairs. There is ample evidence that the repairs service for the G.L.C. is deplorably low. Insufficient moneys have been put in for this task. In my area there are still G.L.C. properties with baths in the kitchens. In 1971 there is no justification for the G.L.C. having properties in that state.
I hope that when the Minister considers the draft Order for the transfer of these houses he will be well seized of the arguments. It will not be sufficient to say that it arises under the 1963 Act. A much better answer is required from a housing management point of view. I should like to be told how it will help the housing situation in Shoreditch and Finsbury. To us in London, this housing problem has always transcended political issues. We have tried hard to find solutions, and we must continue to try. We cannot sit back and let things drift on.
I do not believe that a case has been made for the rôle that the borough councils have been playing since 1968. The answer is alleged to be that some other agencies must be responsible. We have been told that there were insufficient agencies of this kind. I have found it hard to accept the suggestion that in order to find such agencies many Conservative councillors should set themselves up into housing associations so that they could act as if they were not councillors. This is the antithesis of what we on these benches had in mind. It was the pursuit of this doctrinal party policy that did a great deal of harm to housing associations, which I have favoured. They have a role to play, certainly in an area where the local authority has failed to do anything. But the use which has been made of them since 1968 has led me to have very serious second thoughts as to whether I am in favour of them.
As to future housing finance, which no doubt we are all guessing at, if it is anything like what I have been led to believe it is I can understand the story that the Conservative authorities have protested vigorously to the Government about it. If there is any truth in these stories that one hears, they convince me that the Government really have not understood housing problems, certainly in areas like London.
I have tried in a few words to sketch the problems facing Shoreditch and Finsbury. I hope the Minister will continue to press both those authorities to continue building and, above all, to be prepared to give more money to them so that they are able to get the housing problem under control as soon as possible.

5.32 a.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson (Willesden, East): Despite the hour, and despite the fact that the speeches in this debate have come from one side of the House, I hope the Minister will agree that it has been a worth-while debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): indicated assent.

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friends who have spoken—and one particularly congratulates my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser)—have traversed familiar ground, but, none the less, ground which needs to be covered again and again, not only because we must continue to press for adequate answers to a great complex situation in London but because as we go over this ground time and again more information and more understanding are revealed.
During the course of this debate, I think it is right to say that in all the speches most of the major elements of the London problem have been brought out, even if only briefly. I support my hon. Friends. I have made it my business to be here because I believe that the situation in London, and particularly inner London, is virtually a disaster—I am choosing my words with deliberation—and because I believe that the way in which this situation is being handled at present by most—not all—local authorities—the G.L.C. and London


boroughs—is disgraceful. I shall not say anything now that I would not have said had I remained in the office that the Under-Secretary now holds.
The situation in London is very complex. In a relatively short time I cannot go into it in detail, but I want to summarise in statistical terms, boring as they may be, the central issue, without all the fine points that have been rightly raised and which are essential to studying the subject in depth.
As I see the position, after studying the facts and figures as best I could, both whilst I was in the office of junior Minister and since, we have a slum clearance problem in London of about 150,000 unfit dwellings, which are in a shocking condition and which by and large are incapable of being made fit economically. It is not worth spending the money on them. That figure has come out from the Planning Department of the G.L.C., and is now broadly accepted, although when, as a member of the previous Administration in the Ministry of Housing, I suggested about a year ago that there were over 100,000 slums in London, and not the 22,000 being officially quoted by the G.L.C., I was denounced publicly by the then Chairman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee. Today, on the basis of the figures known to the Department and published in the working party's report, the total is 150,000. This comment is in no sense critical of the officials, but already that is an outdated report, and it was becoming outdated when it was published.
There are in London obsolescent dwellings, seriously sub-standard properties that are capable of being modernised and improved and converted into decent flats, totalling between 200,000 and 250,000. I believe that for the purposes of new roads, schools and similar public needs, at least 26,000 dwellings will be demolished on the present known schemes. The present Chairman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee has publicly stated recently that there is a crude shortage of 348,000 dwellings. That is the surplus of families over the number of dwellings in Greater London. The total of those figures is 774,000.
When we consider what is being done, we see why I have stated that we are verging on a disastrous situation in

Greater London. I believe that total local authority housing starts are now running at 20,000-21,000 a year. I am not sure that the figures are not down to 19,000 and on the way down.
I believe that improvements are running at about 4,000 a year. That can only be a broad estimate, and it is of those registered for grants. A certain number of properties may be being improved without grant, but they will be a minority of the total. As a result of these improvements, about 4,000 additional self-contained flats or dwellings are being made available. Private building is running at about 10,500 a year, with a slight marginal upsurge in certain outer districts. I understood that the figure for London's new towns at the time I left office last June was running at approximately 5,000 dwellings a year; it might be a little higher or lower. We therefore have a total annual provision of, roughly, 44,500 dwellings as against a total need of 774,000 needing to be provided in one way or another.
If we were to translate that 774,000 into a 10-year programme, aiming to try to get the main part of this complex of problems resolved by 1981, we would require in total, by way of improvements, new construction and the like, on the list which I have just given, something like 77,000 a year. There is, therefore, a shortfall of about 33,000 a year.
I am the first to accept that statistical sums of this kind are crude and that one cannot run a housing programme or policy in this precise way. I do not suggest that this is any kind of targeteering. I do not believe in targeteering as such in housing. I took that view before my party decided on adopting such a policy in 1964. These are, however, first-class guidelines reflecting a situation which needs to be met and, therefore, cannot be ignored.
The situation is even worse if one looks at it in context over a period. I have recently been checking some figures, as no doubt, the Under-Secretary is aware, by way of Parliamentary Questions, as well as referring to the various volumes of housing statistics. Whatever the Government may do towards the end of this year or next year with their housing legislation by way of reform of housing finance and the like, it is clear, as I had come to realise when I was in office, that


the rate of slum clearance in London during the next five years will drop. It is dropping, and it will continue to drop.
The rate of representations to the Minister, which were already worrying us when I was in office, are continuing to drop. There are always the two stages. One must first make representations for the slum clearance areas to be approved by the Minister. There is then a three to five or six-year gap, putting it optimistically in many instances, between confirmation of the order for slum clearance and the physical demolition after the people have been rehoused.
The figures are extremely disturbing because, after a few years of a steady rise, there have now been several years of levelling off and then a drop. In Greater London, the number of dwellings included in slum clearance area representations to the Department for the London boroughs has fallen from over 6,500 dwellings in 1967 to something over 2,000 in 1970. These are very serious figures, and I do not think that I exaggerate the position when I use the word "disastrous".
In the case of the G.L.C., the situation is not quite so serious. However, the figures are fairly low, anyway. In 1967, there were 1,131 representations. Last year, they were running at the rate of about 1,400 or 1,500. The figure for November is the latest that I have, when it stood at 1,328, so it cannot have been much more than about 1,500.
Between 1968 and 1970, the figure for the Greater London Council was roughly level, whereas there was a sharp drop in the London boroughs.
Much the same happened in the physical clearance of sites. At the moment in Greater London, the clearance rate is running at 5,500 a year, against an estimated figure of 150,000 unfit dwellings incapable of being economically modernised which, according to the planning department of the G.L.C., have not a life of more than 10 years.
When seen in cold print, these figures bore people. I can understand that. But they reflect the realities of the London situation. The G.L.C. and the London boroughs can and should be starting to build at an annual rate of 40,000 dwellings, and I say now no more than I said when I was in the Ministry. The figure

rose steadily until about 1967–68, when it reached about 31,000 starts. Since then, there has been a steady drop to below 20,000. All over London, with two or three marked exceptions, there has not been a continuation of the rise in construction which was essential if we were to get up to something like the 40,000 figure. Again, I do not use that figure as a target. It is based on the needs of London and the local government capacity. It has not even levelled off. Instead, there has been a sharp drop.
The situation is even worse. The Greater London Council, which originally had a programme of something like 9,000 to 9,500 housing starts a year, failed to achieve it from 1968 onwards, although there had been a steady climb until then. But in January of last year there was a disgraceful decision by the G.L.C., the major housing authority for London, to cut back its programme from over 9,000 housing starts to about 7,000, possibly with a further cut-back three or four years later.
That was disgraceful enough. But not even that programme has been achieved. There has been a drop to just over 6,000 starts in the last 12 months or so, and there is no prospect of making up the backlog. In total, this greatest housing authority in the country has cut 12,000 housing starts from its current housing programme.
It is even worse than that. Land has to be assembled in order to maintain a going housing programme, and it must be assembled on the basis of a supply for five years in the pipeline, because that is roughly the period between purchase and the preliminary work of construction, particularly in built-up areas such as London. I am still probing the position, as I tried to do when I was in the Ministry, to see what the land position will be, because beyond 1974–75 no land will be available to the G.L.C. if it manages to achieve somewhere near its present housing programme, that is, if it manages to reach the lower programme of 7,000 houses. There will be one or two marginal sites, but virtually no land bank left to the G.L.C. If it does not achieve 7,000 housing starts and keeps the level down to 6,000, which is the figure down to which it appears to have come, it could add another year, and the 1975 programme would be


seriously at risk despite achievements in the Surrey Docks and so on, because we do not yet know what is to happen to them.
It is not that land is not available, for it is. I do not know whether the Minister has tried to get any sampling of the situation and potential in the London Docks. Land is available for thousands of families to be rehoused in the Greater London area, but that land is not in Inner London where vast ruins of filthy, broken down property must be cleared because of overcrowding and so on, but in undeveloped green field sites, or at worst sites with only a few properties, in areas thinly populated.
There is public resistance by local authorities in these Outer London areas and no sense of participation in solving London's problem as a whole. The only way in which the situation can be dealt with is for the G.L.C. to undertake the kind of strategic action which my hon. Friends have mentioned in these boroughs as part of a coherent policy for London as a whole, not only for the sake of putting up houses, but in order to relate what admittedly should be a bigger figure in Inner London to the development of Outer London.
The programme may be built up so as to include clearance of rotten and obsolescent areas of Inner London, or based on the capital assets of all kinds of houses, owner-occupation, housing associations and large-scale rented accommodation, to provide a social mix, which is what people need and to provide a balanced mix across the city, across the whole of Greater London.
The G.L.C. has made virtually no efforts beyond a few hundred properties, but no approach whatever along these lines in recent years. I do not know whether it will ever be persuaded to do so. I can speak only for those people in my party who are interested in these matters, in county hall and outside it, but not for the majority in control of county hall. The ones for whom I speak are not in control, and even if they were to become so, it would be several years hence. What must happen now, if the G.L.C. will not do this, is that the responsibility must rest with the Government. Although it is easy to say this with hindsight, I assure the hon. Gentle-

man that I am being genuine when I say that had we remained in office we would have taken this seriously on board. It was already seriously on board, and some of the Minister's officials may confirm this if he has discussions with them, even if under constitutional rules, certain documents have to be kept under lock and key.
If the G.L.C. cannot be persuaded, and I hope that it can, to take a strategic, executive rôle in housing for Greater London as a whole, then the Government must consider creating the necessary agency to do the job. This is not something confined to the G.L.C. It is not confined to its failure to build up a land bank, which is something that must be persuaded to begin. This policy is to be found among most local authorities except for two or three in London. Either it is the outer boroughs, not interested in building a few hundred dwellings—sometimes in a year—or it is the Inner London authorities which have been slashing their programme.
We know that the Minister is traversing familiar ground. Although the then Opposition poured scorn upon us when we as a Government stated that we would make contact with those authorities in London and around the country which had been falling down on their housing work, we know that since the Government came into power they have, either through Ministers or through officials in the Department of the Environment, repeated the exercise, trying to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to improve their housing effort. They have also been seeking to get the outer London boroughs to make land available and to participate in the Greater London housing effort.
I hope that such efforts will produce results but I am not optimistic. There will have to be new techniques investigated by Government, new techniques whereby the Minister can really use the reserve powers available under the 1957 Act, which I shall not detail. I know the difficulties involved, but they must be overcome in resolving the housing problems of London. In the meantime it is not sufficient for the Minister to accept better programmes from a number of local authorities which are "phoney" in the extreme.


I know that my hon. Friends are having this experience. There are many hon. Members on this side who know that this is going on as a result of the consultations that officials are having with the staff of the boroughs and as a result of the legislation which the Minister has been laying. There will be many boroughs which have been sending in programmes but are now saying, "We agree, we will start again." It must be remembered that those boroughs, if they are to go ahead with a bigger programme in the next few years, will only be making good, so some extent, the cut-back and the delays which they deliberately embarked upon in the last two or three years since the change of control in 1968.
Even if they have put paper plans forward, they need more probing, with respect for the officials in the Department for whom I have great regard in the difficult job they undertake so vigorously in this sphere. They can be misled, and there has been an excellent example of this, indicated to the House by the Minister in a recent Question hour. I will use this, not because I want to have a go at my own borough but because it illustrates some of the worst aspects of what is going on in London housing and particularly the point I have just been making.
The Minister will recall that in the exchange at Question Time when my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) asked about the borough's housing programme and the cut-back on housing, the Minister said that the House would be pleased to hear that there had been a firm or pretty firm programme of 2,000 houses. These were tenders for 1971 and the programme for the following two years. I do not question that the Minister gave the information to the House in all sincerity, but I have the Council minutes which set out the programme in detail, and I have to tell the Minister that if he or his officials have been given the impression of a firm programme they have been seriously misled.
I am convinced that that is an illustration of the kind of thing that is going on in London, and hon. Members for London and particularly for Inner London are having that kind of experience. The Minister could check it.
Of 1,997 houses, 995, according to the Council, will not be started until 1972.

What is referred to as Stonebridge 4a has been delayed for two to three years. His officials know it, and there is much correspondence.
There is a cut-back from the programme of two or three years ago. What is—more, the council minutes said that the site would be available in 1972, subject to the people on the site—several hundred families—being rehoused as a result of previous programmes. There are 186 young children in Church End and South Willesden in "B" housing. We know what happened at Chalkhill. There are hundreds of families in these areas who should have been rehoused last spring and summer in Chalkhill, but they are still living on the site, and 846 houses cannot start until the families are rehoused, and there are no plans for that so far.
A housing association scheme is included in the borough list, which can hardly be described as a municipal programme. It is rather a "phoney" figure. I could go on to 1972, when, the Minister said, no doubt on the basis of information from the local authority, that there was a programme of 500 houses, while its figures show 376 for 1972. Of that number, 125 are housing association houses and 360 are on land subject to purchase and which the council has not even minuted a decision to go ahead and buy. It if does not get the land, it will not get the houses on it. The same exercise has been undertaken for 1973.
I have gone into some detail to show and the minutes are available and I should be glad to pass them on to the Minister, or he can get copies of them from the local authority—that what he and his officials may believe, as a result of conversations they have had in London, to be firm programmes are paper exercises. I will not pursue the political point from a public relations point of view for the local authority between now and the May elections; I leave it stated as a point without elaboration. All over London boroughs have been doing this. I could name them. Boroughs which I visited prior to the General Election when I was at the Ministry and some which have been mentioned tonight are failing in their duty.
I started by saying that the situation is threatening to become disastrous. I hope that I have shown in summary


terms by a few examples and a number of figures that local authorities are not doing the job—and not simply because they are in financial difficulty. I accept that they are in difficulty. The Government are carrying out a full scale investigation into the future of their financing of local authority housing. It was not started with the change of Government. We have yet to see whether we shall agree with the results. I make that point to show that we were as much concerned and aware of the financial problems of local authorities. I personally interviewed several of them when I was at the Ministry. I know that London boroughs like Lambeth and Camden have serious problems.
But it is significant that authorities with the biggest financial problems and biggest housing problems are making the greatest effort, under whatever political control they may be. Lambeth is pursuing a bipartisan policy. It is among the most progressive housing authorities in the country. It is invidious to say that a housing manager is the best in the country, but Lambeth has a first class administration and policy. There has been no break between the Labour administration and the Conservative administration. One can also say of other local authorities that those with the greatest financial and physical problems are those with the greatest housing programmes. I use the phrase which I used before we left office: they have the political will to carry on with the job and others have not. The other have decided to opt out of housing.
It is a serious thing that at the very time in parliamentary history when we have legislated to give greater powers and responsibilities to local authorities to treat the whole of the housing problems in their areas rather than just to build council house estates and issue health Act notices—and I have in mind particularly the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, with its action area concept, and the Housing Act, 1969—local authorities in London and in other parts of the country under the control of the Conservative Party have decided virtually to opt out of the housing effort, many of them completely, others very largely. They have sliced their programmes and are having constant reviews.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend has not seized the point of another aspect. The G.L.C. has had clearance orders on areas in my constituency since 1963 and 1964. It is delaying work on houses which should have been cleared because it wants to try to hand the whole issue back to the boroughs on 1st April, resulting in houses not being cleared as the boroughs will not be in a position to clear them.

Mr. Freeson: It is even worse, certainly in some parts of London, than my hon. Friend suggests. I think this is true to some extent of Islington. It is worse because the G.L.C. is not only planning to pass over some of its responsibilities in this respect, but those which it is still maintaining it is slowing down on considerably. I think Islington has some problem in this respect, and is some six to twelve months behind the G.L.C. slum clearance programme. But it is also, of course, because the G.L.C. will be handing over potential schemes, which could be done rapidly, to authorities some of which are conducting the same kind of policy as the G.L.C. has been conducting, slowing down their own rate of clearance.
I quoted pretty stark figures, and I am not going to go over them again, but I think it is fair to say that they underline the seriousness of the situation. It is not getting better; it is not even stabilising: the housing effort in London is becoming abysmally low. We, when we were in Government, were traversing the same ground as the Minister is now having to traverse.
The question is whether the Government are going to investigate ways in which they can take the necessary action and use the power which they have in reserve to get the housing effort in London upped, at least to the 1967 level, or the level of round about that period. That should be the first objective, to get back at least to the 30,000 housing starts, to get back at least to the 6,000 to 7,000 clearance representations instead of the 2,000-odd per year, to get back to a much bigger rate of actual clearance, and also to step up—this a point which I have not elaborated this evening very much because of the time—the considerable effort in the housing improvement field—in addition to slum clearance, not,


to repeat what I have said at Question time, in place of it, as is happening up and down London today. These things go together—slum clearance representation and slum clearance itself, alongside reconstruction of areas which are not the most suitable areas for improvement anyway—reconstructing all areas which, under the 1969 Act, should be demolished and rebuilt.
These are the things which need to be done, and they need to be done urgently, because if we do not get the housing effort upped in London, ultimately to that 40,000 a year London housing starts and also 40,000 a year housing improvements —not the one in place of the other, but both together—by the end of the century we shall have the same problem as we have now, and 10 years from now there will be something like 1 million people in London still living in these disgraceful conditions.
The figures speak for themselves. If we carry on at the present rate of clearance in London with almost 150,000 slums and with the sub-standard properties which, not being improved rapidly enough, will slip into slumdom, then by the end of this century we shall still have the main bulk of our slums standing in London, added to by the many, many thousands of properties which will not have been improved rapidly enough by the local authorities, whether borough or G.L.C., because they will not have organised themselves effectively to get the job done. They will not have done this, will not have organised themselves, because they have not the political will.
This evening I have avoided any reference to the political changeover which may take place between now and that period. The reason why is that although I believe that were there to be changes, as I believe there will be, to some extent at least, in May, at the municipal elections, which could result in an improved housing programme, what I have seen in the last few years has done so much damage to the municipal housing effort in London that it will take many years to recover the leeway we have lost—

Mr. Ronald Brown: And the money.

Mr. Freeson: —under Tory control. Even when we have made up that leeway, we shall be nowhere near the rate of construction and improvement of slum

clearance we should have achieved by now had we maintained the progress which was built up until about 1968 when the political changes took place.
For all these reasons, I believe that it has been right to have this debate. Let there be no fear that it will not be repeated and that we shall not carry on this issue at much greater depth and length on other occasions both inside and outside this House.
We have a disastrous situation in London. If action is not taken soon, I fear that we shall have a situation arising which has shown itself very much a real issue in many of America's great cities. If that day comes, many politicians in town halls, as well as here, will have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders for the social disaster which they will have helped to create.

6.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and, indeed, all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are entitled to raise this subject at any hour of the day or night. Indeed, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, said that we shall have more debates on the subject.
No one on either side of the House can deny that the housing situation in London is simply ghastly. It is one of our major social problems. It is one of the most serious social problems which will confront not only this Government but whichever party is in power for a very long time.
It is certainly right that, even at the risk of going on rather long this evening, we should have had a debate of some length on the appalling problem of London housing. I hope that I shall cover most of the points which have been raised in what I have to say without being too long. If I miss some points, I hope that, at this hour of the morning, I shall be forgiven, and perhaps hon. Members will get in touch with me later and I shall do my best to answer them.
Although the hon. Member for Willesden, East spoke last, some of his points are fresh in my mind, so I will deal with one or two of them now.


I should not like to be thought to be accepting the hon. Gentleman's figures without carefully checking them at a better time of day. However, I must point out one or two errors which occurred to me as the hon. Gentleman gave his figures.
It is true that slum clearance representations are down, but the forward programme is ahead again. If authorities fulfil this programme the representations will increase again and later the slum clearance will go up.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about 150,000 unfit dwellings. They are not necessarily unfit now, but they will be unfit in about eight to 15 years if action is not taken in that time.
It is true that last year approvals—not only G.L.C. approvals—fell below 20,000. But there is evidence to assume that approvals this year will be higher than last year, although not nearly as high as any hon. Member would like to see.
As a preliminary start to my remarks, I can tell the House that the G.L.C. is already undertaking a fresh survey of housing land availability in connection with the development plan inquiry to which hon. Members have referred in their speeches.
I thought that all hon. Members spoke about this subject with the great seriousness which it deserves. However, I cross swords with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), who raised this subject, when he attacks my right hon. Friend about his remarks a year ago. My right hon. Friend has answered this attack very fully in an Answer to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who raised it in the House. I think that my right hon. Friend's answer is conclusive on the point. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts, I suggest that he should consider my right hon. Friend's actions since he has been in office. My right hon. Friend has said many times—I think that I can claim the support of the hon. Member for Willesden, East on this—that we need a vigorous housing programme for areas of great need, and we all know that London is one of them. So I hope that the hon. Member did not mean that attack to be taken with the seriousness of the rest of his speech.
While trying not to be too partisan, I shall have to answer one or two of the partisan points which have properly been put to me tonight. It would be foolish of me to try to lay the blame for what has happened at the door of the last Government. It would be even more absurd for anyone to lay it at the door of a Government who have been only eight months in office. I shall try to discuss objectively the intractable problems which face us and where the best line of advance lies.
Both major political parties have been in charge of our affairs for roughly half the post-war period and we both bear an equal share of credit or blame for what we find in London today, as the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), the Opposition spokesman on housing, more or less said the other day in a speech in the constituency of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown).
As hon. Members have said, in spite of its diversity, London still has a unity. All its activities bear upon one another. Many people living in Outer London and beyond London altogether draw their sustenance and support from commerce and industry near the centre, which in their turn requires their hands and brain.
It is obvious that the London housing problem must be treated as a whole. There is no doubt that the housing needs of Inner London are beyond its own capacity to cope with, for two main reasons—first, the increased pressure on the inner areas, arising from increased traffic, tourism and 1001 other reasons, and, second, the fact that when old, unfit houses are cleared away in the inner areas it is rarely possible to get more or even as many new houses in replacement, especially when one has to allow for schools and open spaces as well as decent standards of new housing.
Outer London, too, has its problems, but it has been clearly shown that the position will be getting a little easier in the next few years. There will be problems, of course, in Outer London, but I believe that we will be seeing it helping Inner London, with its pressing and continuing needs.
All this was set out in the third Report of the Standing Working Party on London Housing. These figures are formidable,


even on the working party's own estimate. They saw a deficit of 100,000 dwellings in Inner London and another 150,000 sub-standard dwellings. In my view, those figures were optimistic rather than pessimistic and the situation may well be worse than this. All hon. Members will regret it, but we must face it as a realistic fact.
My right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State, sent out this report in July last. I well remember reading this report. It was almost the first thing handed to me by officials when I arrived at the end of June or early July at the Ministry of Housing. It was not a pleasant document to receive in those circumstances. When he sent it out, my right hon. Friend asked London housing authorities to take note of four things. The first was the need to pursue a vigorous building programme; the second the need for Outer London to help in easing the housing needs of Inner London; the third, the importance of improvement grants in reducing the number of houses without basic amenities or which were otherwise unsatisfactory; and the fourth the help which the proper provision of a Housing Advisory Service might give in providing information as to ways in which new housing can be obtained outside the Inner London area.
Local authority housing is obviously not the only answer, and I was glad to hear hon. Members say this. Private enterprise can help, as can housing associations and societies. However, we all appreciate that there are extremely difficult problems no matter which way one builds in London. First and foremost is the difficulty of finding land and the high cost of the land once it has been found.
For this reason my right hon. Friend told the London authorities, in effect, "We want to encourage all these agencies to build, but we beg you not to let your efforts flag in the meantime." In other words, we must do all we can to help these agencies, and we are studying the evidence which was submitted to the Cohen Committee. On the private enterprise building side, my right hon. Friend is now having discussions with the building societies on the question of home ownership, so that there is little that I can add on this aspect now. Local

authorities are also up against this problem of cost.
I wish to allay some fears that have been expressed, and I am confident that the facts will, in time, bear out what I say. Although we may disagree across the Floor of the House about the reform of housing finance, the proposals which my right hon. Friend announced in November and which are now under discussion with the local authority associations are designed to put the boroughs with the most problems in a better position to face those problems. I accept that the boroughs with the worst problems in the country are the boroughs of Inner London. The Government's financial help will be directed to places where it is most needed and where it will do the most good.
At the beginning of his remarks the hon. Member for Norwood vigorously attacked some Conservative-controlled local authorities. I thought it ironic that he referred, when quoting instances of good authorities, to Lambeth, Wandsworth, Hackney and Southwark. Of those four, three are controlled by the Tories. I trust, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept, as I do, that there are good and bad local authorities belonging to all political parties. As I say, with the exception of Southwark, the boroughs he mentioned are Conservative-controlled. I do not want to labour this political point because it is always boring to say who did better or worse since, say, 1965. We must concentrate on doing better in future.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East was right to describe Lambeth as one of the best housing authorities in London. Indeed, it is one of the best in England. For what it is worth, it is building a great deal more now than when it was Labour-controlled. I do not make much of this point, and I mention it only to show that there are no clear black or white answers to this problem.
Lambeth has done a number of other things of which we approve. For example, its housing aid centre is a model of its kind and may turn out to be the pioneer of many other such centres throughout the country. Perhaps I should refer to it as a possible joint pioneer because equally good, though quite different, is the Shelter housing advisory centre


in Kensington. Lambeth's register of multi-occupation properties could well have a profound effect on housing in the area, and I hope that similar schemes will be started elsewhere, especially when the success of the Lambeth scheme is fully appreciated. So I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to be quite so partisan. Even on his own statement there is an example universally recognised as one of the best authorities which is not controlled by his own party. We are not all devils, even by his own standards.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) had some harsh things to say about Ealing. I do not have with me now the figures relating to all the London boroughs, but I am informed that Ealing is now back to a programme for 1971–72 of 1,000 dwellings a year. If that programme is fulfilled the House will have reason to feel gratified about it. I must point out that despite the strictures of many hon. Members opposite more houses are to be built by local authorities in London in 1971 than in 1970, and the G.L.C. will have a very substantial programme as well.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with a very important point, and there is one thing that he must not slide over. The fact that there might be an increase in 1971 over 1970 must be set against the much more important fact that the figure for 1970 is considerably lower than the housing effort of three years ago. There has been a sharp drop. So whatever increase there may be it is nowhere near what should be going on at present.

Mr. Channon: I said earlier that this was not nearly as much as we hoped for, so to that extent I must accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Although I am sure that the House is delighted that the figures will be up in 1971, the whole House also knows that in the face of this ghastly problem the figures are not high enough. We can all agree about that.
At the risk of being rather disjointed, perhaps I can turn to some of the various points that have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Norwood asked about housing starts. The figures are collected in the Department and published in the Local Housing Statistics from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. He will find the housing starts if he wants to.
I hope that the House will not expect me to go into great detail tonight about G.L.C. house transfers. It does not prevent them being used for London's needs, as 65 per cent. of voids are reserved for the G.L.C., and Professor Cullingworth has said that Phase 2 of the transfer is acceptable.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) raised important points about improvements. I was sorry that he felt that the 1969 Act was not successful, but I will see whether there is widespread evidence of what he says. What I think he is saying is that in Camden and St. Pancras a number of unscrupulous landlords are driving a number of tenants to do away with their legal rights. If they obey the letter of the law, the hon. Gentleman's constituents should have no complaint.
It is a small minority, and I emphasise that it is a small minority, of landlords who behave in this way and who bring so much of our housing legislation into disrepute. We all know that there is a small minority of very bad landlords and we all know that there is a very small minority of bad tenants. The Francis Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Acton referred, is dealing in its report with the whole question of bad tenants and bad landlords.
I can assure the House that the Government are determined to do all they can to track down and attack the activities of the bad landlord if it can humanly be done. The hon. Member quoted some comments showing how difficult it was to do this, but where there are ways the Government are determined to use them. We can claim as at least prima facie evidence that we mean what we say in the fact that almost the first thing we did on coming to office was to increase publicity of tenants' rights. Hon. Members may have seen quite a large national campaign on these lines in the last few months.
The landlords to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are bluffing their tenants. If they are controlled tenants and the improvements are carried out, they become regulated tenants. They do not lose their security of tenure, and anybody who tells them that they lose their security of tenure is wrong. The hon. Gentleman


helped pass the 1969 Act through the House. He must tell his constituents that they are having their bluff called, and he must help them get round this problem if he can do so. I accept that it is a very difficult problem.
It is nice to have the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) back in housing debates. It is a long time since he took part in one. Many years ago when I was a very young back bencher and took part in such debates the right hon. Gentleman led for the Opposition on housing matters. I will certainly note what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Borough of Hammersmith, though I do not accept everything that he says about it. I will study the very important points the right hon. Gentleman raised.
On the question of railway land, the West Kensington Goods Yard scheme, which I imagine is the one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is now going ahead. I understand that there are still some problems. I hope that they can be resolved, but the great thing is that the scheme is going ahead under the London Borough of Hammersmith. We can all be pleased that the borough has taken that decision.
The House knows that the Government take a different view from the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the sale of council houses. I do not know whether the House would want me to go into the argument in detail tonight, because we all take fairly rigid different views on it. My point is that selling council houses does not in effect reduce the stock, because if the practical facts are faced those who are in such dwellings are almost certain to remain there for the indefinite future. Someone else is not thereby being deprived of the chance of going into the property, because the property will not be vacant, anyway. The right hon. Gentleman takes a different view about this, and we shall have to agree to differ on this point. I am sure that we shall be debating the question on many occasions in the future.
The hon. Member for Acton rightly asked me when we would see the trinity of reports coming out—Greve, Cohen and Francis. The question of the publication of the Greve Report is not for me, alas. I wish it were. The question

of the publication of the Greve Report is for Professors Greve and Cullingworth. It is for the research team to publish the report. I understand—it is not for me to say whether it is accurate; it is not my report—that it is to be published fairly soon, I hope within the next month or six weeks. If the hon. Gentleman wants an authoritative answer, he must ask the authors rather than me.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Am I right in thinking that the Department has had a copy of the report? Is the Department examining the Greve Report? What action is it proposed to take on it?

Mr. Channon: I intend to come to that question.
I hope that publication of the Cohen Report will not be long delayed. This report is not in the same form as most reports. It is the collation of the evidence of the former Cohen Committee. We shall have to decide on the most appropriate way of publishing it. It is a very complicated document which I am sure hon. Members will want to study.
The Francis Report has been received and is being printed. It is being studied and I hope that it will be published shortly—certainly within the next month, perhaps much sooner. It is a very long and detailed report, and hon. Members will find the arguments it contains well worth studying. It is an extremely important report which will have far-reaching effects on London housing, and the Government and the Opposition will have to reach important conclusions as to whether they accept the recommendations in the report. For that, we shall have to wait until the report is published.
Dealing now with the question asked by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury, we have seen a copy of the Greve Report and this is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has set up the Working Party on Homelessness to take action on some of the things mentioned in the report. I wish I could tonight tell the hon. Gentleman the terms of reference and the details of the working party which he asked for. I will inquire whether I can do that, but as of tonight I am not in a position to do that. I


will make inquiries to see whether that information can or cannot become public knowledge. I do not know the reasons which have led my right hon. Friend to that conclusion. Certainly this subject is largely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He takes the problem of homelessness very seriously, for it is an extremely serious social problem.
One other matter which the hon. Member for Acton raised was the duty of local authorities to survey the housing needs in their areas. A wide duty is placed on local authorities by the 1969 Act, and we shall be encouraging local authorities to cover all aspects of their housing needs. I hope that I have dealt with the four questions that the hon. Member asked me. If not, no doubt he will be getting in touch with me.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury raised many points. I admire the stamina of his constituents drinking sherry at 5.25 in the morning. I do not know whether they will be doing so at 6.40. In reply to his point concerning Farringdon Road compulsory purchase order, I do not think that I should go into that in detail, especially as he intends to refer the case to the Ombudsman. I hope that the hon. Member will not think that everything is utterly wrong. The procedure that the Minister took made it possible to produce a final decision earlier than the Inspector's procedure, and in the event the compulsory purchase order was confirmed. I had better not go into the details without being very carefully briefed on this very important matter, although I have, of course, seen the papers relating to it.
I have had a pleasant discussion with the London Borough of Hackney, at its request. I am in continuous touch with the London Borough of Hackney about a whole host of matters—

Mr. Ronald Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman be able, even by writing me a personal letter, to tell me something about the situation in South Shoreditch? I am very concerned about the private developers' proposals there. I believe that he has discussed this issue with Hackney. I am advised that he said that

he could not make any comment. I am concerned about the proposal to erect a £2,500,000 office block in the area, which would be scandalous. I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me know that this is not his Department's policy.

Mr. Channon: I must be careful about commenting on what the hon. Gentleman has said. For all I know, this may be the subject of a planning application and it may be unwise for me to commit myself. All I can say now is that I note what the hon. Member says. If it is proper for me to discuss this matter with him I shall do so, but I cannot be sure that it would be proper.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East said that he thought he was in danger of boring the House with figures. I can assure him that he was not in any such danger. He made an extremely valuable speech and we shall study it with great interest.
Not all the points have been covered. Even the hon. Member for Willesden, East left out a few. I must not delay the House for more than a few more minutes, but may I turn to the subject of improvement? Improvement and conversion, in spite of what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, can help greatly, as the Minister's letter made clear. The Government have already stepped up the promotion of this work by campaigns all over the country, and we are preparing the ground for a massive improvement campaign in London. I hope that we shall be able to use the full resources of Press and television to get the message across to the many thousands of people who must be desperately concerned to improve London's older houses.
I hope that we shall involve local authorities, local societies, voluntary bodies and all those who have a part to play. I am confident that with their co-operation the result will be nothing less than a crusade changing the houses of thousands of Londoners for the better.
I know that the House will be pleased to see the increase in the number of grants by local authorities. In 1969 the total number of grants was just under 109,000. That figure increased by over 43 per cent, to 156,400 in 1970. In no other place is the improvement scheme more necessary than in London. It is clear also that many London boroughs


are getting down to the job of encouraging house and area improvements in an excellent way and are setting an example in improving their own older property. I certainly believe that it is essential that we should improve areas that can be improved. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not improve areas that are really slums. If he has evidence of that happening I hope that he will bring it to my attention.
I believe that more scope exists for housing associations, particularly in conversions and improvements. We shall see the results of the Cohen Study in due course. The G.L.C. has given massive support to housing associations in the past three years.
My right hon. Friend has acted on housing aid centres, and a number of local authorities have set them up. Lambeth is one, and there are others in London. I hope that there will be many others before long. Apart from day-to-day expertise and direction on housing, rents, landlords and tenants, a housing aid centre can often steer people to a radical but acceptable solution of their difficulty, such as a move to another town. Evidence from one such centre shows that nearly one in three applicants ends up buying his own home. That is a remarkable figure. My right hon. Friend had discussions about this with representatives of the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association in October.
Apart from the question of new towns, the housing problem is not local but is of regional importance. The South-East Joint Planning Study, published last year, showed how the inner London housing problems were a matter of regional significance involving a future strategy for the whole metropolitan region. Housing stress in inner London figures in the strategic policies embodied in the Greater London Development Plan, which it would not be appropriate for me to comment on now.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of new towns but omitted town development schemes, which are providing homes for the overspill programme for 5,000 to 6,000 London families annually. We look to a growing contribution from the new towns at Milton Keynes, Northampton and Peterborough

when they come into full house-production at the end of the decade.
We need help not only in the form of contributions from the outer boroughs to the problems of the inner boroughs, and seizing opportunities for future redevelopment which may, for example, emerge in the docks, but a sustained overspill programme as a prudent and sensible measure to provide its own relief to the housing stress in inner London.
The private sector is terribly important, but has not been mentioned very much in the debate. By "the private sector" I mean the private landlords and tenants, who include many of those who most need our understanding and sense of fair play, and I am thinking of the landlords as well as the tenants when I say that. Some people seem to regard all private landlords as an evil institution or at best an anachronism who should be loaded with all possible restraint and injustice. Even if the Government held that view, which they certainly do not, the folly of it from the tenants' point of view should be obvious to any moderately intelligent person. So long as millions of our fellow citizens lawfully rent accommodation from private landlords—and the previous Government did not provide any alternative—restraint and discouragement of the landlord which goes beyond a fair balance with protection of the tenant reacts against the tenants' own interests, by decreasing the supply and depressing the quality of the accommodation available to them. We have seen this happening for a very long time. We shall bring these dwellings very rapidly into a fair rent system, and we shall also make sure that private tenants who need help with paying their rents will also be able to get aid. That is a terribly important reform in housing policy, and it is desperately important in London above all places. A much greater proportion of Londoners are private tenants than are people anywhere else.

Mr. Spearing: Could the Minister answer my question as to whether those grants will be from the rates or direct from the Exchequer, or does not he know?

Mr. Channon: The whole question of housing finance, in the public and private sector, is under consideration. I cannot answer questions about changes in it


until negotiations are concluded. I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Member's question about that tonight.
The Francis Committee's Report is being printed and will be published as soon as possible.
As I said in an earlier debate, we must improve the situation in a way which is fair to both sides, to make sure that we punish the tiny minority of bad landlords and the tiny minority of bad tenants, both of which give the system a bad name. Incidentally, I hope that other boroughs will follow Islington's excellent example of prosecuting far more rigorously than, I think, some boroughs have done.
In trying to find new and better ways of tackling London's housing problem, none of us—I mean, local authorities and the Government acting together—can neglect to make the best use of the powers that we already have to build, clear slums, improve, convert and do all the other things that are available to housing authorities and the Government.
The problem is utterly ghastly. It is a nightmare for any Government to be faced with on arrival in office. I am sure that it was a nightmare for the last Government, too, when they arrived in office. It will be a continuing nightmare to successive Governments for a long time. I believe that, one day, we will see the problem of London solved, but it will take a long time. There are bound to be political differences between the two parties about how it should be solved. I assure the House, however, that the Government are determined to do what they can and to follow policies which, they believe, will have their effect in trying to improve the ghastly situation that all of us know exists in London and which is still a scandal to our capital city.

Orders of the Day — AU PAIR GIRLS

6.51 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport): I am very glad to be able to follow the preceding debate with another serious social problem. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for being present

to answer this debate, because I know that the subject does not come within his Department. I hope that he will be able to give me a satisfactory answer.
I think it can be said that this is an all-party debate because, as Chairman of the British Vigilance Association, which co-ordinates a number of organisations interested in work concerning young people, and as a delegate to the Council of Europe, which has discussed the matter since 1962, I have led four deputations, two to the previous Government when they were in power and two to the present Conservative Government. I am also supported by an excellent staff who work for our association. We have also worked closely with the Secretary of the Federation of Employment Agencies, who has proved most helpful.
Regrettably, the only success that we have had to date is in getting the age for girls coming to this country as au pairs raised from 15 to 17 years. I have recently put down two Questions in this matter and from the answers to them I note that there are now about 20,000 au pair girls in this country, who should be receiving pocket money of between 50s. and £2 a week. Britain is the largest "importing" country of au pairs. It is interesting also to find that their number has gone up by about 1,000 a year during the last four years.
There has been a very great widening of applications. At one time, for instance, the girls were mainly French and German, but we now have Japanese, Moroccans, Indians, Brazilians, Argentinians and Persians, while those from European countries include Poles, Finns, Portuguese, Spanish and Maltese.
Arrangements can be made for the girls to be met at certain stations by Travellers' Aid, which has a large number of voluntary workers, who do an excellent job in making the girls and other travellers welcome.
Au pairs were originally an
exchange of family friends for the purpose of learning languages in various countries".
Now, I suggest, they come here as student workers. They obtain their jobs here in various ways, many of them, unfortunately, through undesirable advertisements. The Times happens to be one of the newspapers which they take and


it is full of types of advertisement such as
Father and son want au pair, £10 weekly.
An advertisement in The Times today says:
Au pairs, nannies, household staff—Britain and Europe—Baxter's Agency, Peterborough.
These should be jobs done by labour permit girls. There are others offering as much as £10, one for an English girl to go to Brussels.
When girls arrive in this country, they are allowed to enter even if they come merely with a letter from a parent stating,
To whom it may concern: my daughter requires a job as an au pair.
Previously, exchanges were unpaid and temporary and were looked upon as a sort of cut-price finishing school. Now, I regret to say that the girls are semi-servants for people who cannot afford servants, who do not like doing the work themselves, and who in most cases do not pay National Insurance or selective employment tax.
A book has recently been published called "You British—as the au-pair girls see us", by Elaine Grand. This shows a great deal of the attitudes of girls who come to this country. A French girl says:
Meal times are a terrible murder three times a day.
A girl from the United States says:
Not animal lovers. Just people lovers gone wrong.
There are many other descriptions with which I will not weary the House at this late hour. The book makes interesting reading. It also says that the girls like England but do not like the families. The advent of the au pair girl has finally changed the concept of domestic service. They give it a status symbol.
The Home Office said that 3,000 girls came in on residence permits in one year. As we are now told that there are 20,000 here, I should like to know how the others came here, what contact we have with them and what control we have over them. How do the Home Office know that there are 20,000 here?
My hon. Friend will have seen the article in the Sunday Telegraph by Mandrake which gives a fairly accurate

picture. I believe that there are au pairs in Buckingham Palace who are paid £8 10s. and 2s. 6d. a day for lunch, with Royal Ascot and a Christmas party thrown in.
We have taken certain action, having failed to get much action out of either Government. One of the actions taken was by the Federation of Employment Agencies, which made contact with the Norwegian Embassy and agreed a contract which girls are sent before coming to this country. This has been very successful. However, I regret to say that the previous Government wrote round to the agencies and stated that they were not to make further agreements with other countries.
I want a contract for this country between the host and the girl or boy, the prototype of which has been sent by the Federation of Employment Agencies to the Home Office. I want a contract of agreement for this country now. The suggested contract for the Council of Europe is completely useless, according to international lawyers. There has been no real agreement about the outlines of the contract, and I do not think that we can wait any longer.
As I have said, we are the largest importing country of these girls, and it is high time that we gave them protection. There are many social workers who are interested in the problem, not all of whom are English. One, a Dutch priest, recently sent out a questionnaire to 50 girls. There were 11 different nationalities, French, Spanish and Finnish making up the majority.
I can let my hon. Friend have a copy of the questionnaire, together with a first-class document showing how the questions have been answered. The average age appears to be between 17 and 24, the majority being 20. The average working week is between 45 and 50 hours, and the average length of stay is one year. When asked whether they knew anything about this country, 27 said that they did and they knew someing about the family, but 23 said that they did not. Only 24 had one complete day free and six had no half days. One answered a question to say that she was working 80 hours a week, 60 doing housework and 20 baby sitting. The money varied from £6 to £3.50p and I was


therefore very disturbed to hear it suggested that the pay was as low as 50s.
Besides the contract suggested by the Federation of Employment Agencies, another organisation, a Catholic organisation, with great experience of this work, for many of these girls are Catholic, has made suggestions. It feels that we should get a contract or agreement signed without waiting for the Council of Europe. It suggests among other things that an au pair should have to provide a written reference and detailed information about herself, her capabilities and background and, if she is still abroad, a photograph. It suggests that an agreement should be drawn up between the parties before the girl leaves her country, or, failing that, within one week of her arrival among the family the contract, provided that it was in order, as one would hope, would be shown to the immigration officer and when registering with the police. It also wants her to have a medical examination one month, not three months as suggested by the Council of Europe, before she enters this country.
Both the Council of Europe and organisations in this country want the girl to have a separate room. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe does not state, and we think that this is important, that the room shall be in the house of the hostess herself, for we know from experience, not so much in this country as in France and other countries, that the girls are put into the little rooms which used to be used by servants, rooms which are in the tops of buildings, or sometimes with the concierge, or in a pension around the corner.
We also want their rooms to be heated. We find that this is one of the great difficulties. One girl remarked about the people of this country, "Well, they've got this pathetic belief that God, the Gulf Stream and two lumps of coal can keep them warm."
In return, we want the hostess to give information about the number of adults in the house, her husband's profession, her own if any and whether she does full-time or part-time work, the ages of the children and whether there are any animals in the house and so on. It is considered that in order to make the contract effective, it would be necessary to

have a tighter control of the agencies and private bodies which are now placing au pair girls and, if it is possible, we should like further control over advertisements in the newspapers.
In the event of a serious transgression by either party, there should be an authorised body with power to act. When one of our deputations visited the Home Office, it was suggested that the British Business Association could do this if funds were provided. The girls need somewhere to turn. My association deals with 1,500 to 2,000 girls a year coming for advice or information about the families to which they are going, but it is only a small proportion.
I am asking the Minister not to wait for the Council of Europe agreement. It is no good in any case and we do not think that there is any point in waiting for it. We have not signed the convention and we do not have to sign any agreement for au pairs, but as these girls have been coming here since 1962, it is essential for the Government to take action. I am not speaking just for myself. There is great anxiety among social workers of different nationalities working in our institutions, voluntary or paid. I hope my hon. Friend will see that this is not just a technical problem, but a very human one.
There are some amusing quotations in this book on au pair girls written by Elaine Grand. For instance:
Rosanna from Italy thinks everyone in England is a hypocrite except for George Brown".
Or:
The English woman's idea of a salad is a piece of dead lettuce, a bit of mashed up beetroot and half a rotten tomato.
Or:
The best part is London parks. There is no signs saying 'Keep Off the Grass' and people can eat on it and boys and girls make love there. I like this very much.
The author says:
I suppose the overall impression is that they don't like us. But it is much easier to criticise than to compliment, particularly in a foreign language. Basically I think they must have a sneaking fondness for us, otherwise they would all have rushed back home years ago.
That is probably a good summing-up. It does not overcome the great problem of the need to protect these girls. They


do not pay any National Insurance and they get health treatment free. The Council of Europe stressed particularly the question of maternity benefit which I thought rather unwise. That is another reason why my hon. Friend must see to it that we get a contract quickly so that we can put our own house in order and look after this matter.

7.7 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I am well aware of the interest and concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has always shown in this subject, both in her dealings with the Home Office and through the Council of Europe. I assure her that I fully appreciate her concern. As she is aware, this country is the largest importer of au pair girls. I agree that the employment of such girls raises many human problems. What I am not so sure about is whether her solution, if it is intended to be a legally binding contract, would be the best answer. We must look at the present arrangement and ask whether entering into a legally binding contract might or might not change substantially the basis on which the au pair girls come to this country.
I should like to remind the House of the present position and of the guidance given by the Home Office with regard to their residence in this country. It is important that at the present, the au pair arrangement is an entirely voluntary one under which a foreign girl comes to this country, primarily to learn the English language and to have the opportunity to live for a while as a member of a British family.
It gives her a chance not only to learn the language of this country, but to see something of our way of life. She receives her keep and some pocket money. My hon. Friend said she was disappointed at figures in a recent Answer of £2 10s. to £3 as the recommended sum to be paid. The amount appropriate to be paid to an au pair girl must obviously take account of rising costs, but she receives her keep and pocket money and in return is expected to undertake light household duties.
I emphasise that the arrangement is essentially informal and must depend for its success on the goodwill of the au pair

girl and the hostess. It is not the intention that they should be working students but that the au pair girl shall come to learn the language and live with an English family in exchange for a reasonable amount of light household work.
While I emphasise the informal character of the au pair arrangement, the Home Office have thought it advisable to issue guidance for the benefit of hostesses and au pair girls. A leaflet giving this guidance and setting out what are considered to be appropriate arrangements between the au pair and the hostess is now available in all the main European languages at consular posts for foreign girls who wish to inquire about coming here as au pairs.
I take my hon. Friend's point about people coming from far wider areas and I am inquiring whether or not this document is equally available for those countries as well.
When the girls enter this country to take up such a post they are given a copy of the leaflet in the appropriate language and a copy is sent to the address of the prospective hostess. The leaflet goes into some detail in setting out the conditions of au pair arrangements. While it is made clear that these arrangements are the responsibility of the two parties and they are not made through official channels, they outline the principles which they believe should govern the relationship between the two parties and the conditions in which au pair girls should be limited in period—

Dame Joan Vickers: I know about the leaflet. That is one reason I wanted the debate. It is no good them getting the leaflet when they get here. We want them to have leaflets before they get here.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend says the leaflet is of little value. It is available before they come as well as being given out when they arrive. My hon. Friend says that the leaflet has little value, but it sets out many of the basic aims which I think she has in mind. It recommends the type of work which an au pair girl should be expected to undertake. It recommends a reasonable maximum working time of five hours a day which my hon. Friend would agree is reasonable. It has no relation to some of the abuses which my hon. Friend mentioned concerning the sort of hours


required. Not only does the leaflet set out reasonable hours but it points out that the relationship must be on a partnership basis and makes it clear that no girl coming to this country should be expected to help with the heavier chores if the hostess employs other help for that work. An au pair is expected to live on terms of social equality with the family to whom she comes and be prepared to do only the work which the hostess is willing to undertake.
I hope that my hon. Friend does not disagree with what is in the pamphlet. What concerns her, I think, is whether it is adequate and whether its terms are adequately carried out by people coming here. Therefore, I should like to say something about what happens at the point of entry of the au pair to this country. Before doing so, I wish to say, in answer to another specific point, that it is made clear in the pamphlet that the au pair girl should have a bedroom of her own, and it is clearly intended that the bedroom should be in the house of the hostess to whom she is coming.
My hon. Friend said that she knew of a case in which, at the point of entry, all that was said in the letter which the girl brought with her was, "My daughter requires a job as an au pair." The Home Office is always willing to look into any complaints raised about the system, but I understand that what normally happens on arrival at the point of entry to this country is that a good deal of trouble is taken by the immigration officers to ensure, not only that both parties are aware of what constitutes a reasonable au pair agreement, but that girls are not allowed entry to this country merely on the basis of their saying that they intend to take work on an au pair basis. Immigration officers have instructions to satisfy themselves that an acceptable au pair arrangement exists and the girls are asked to produce relevant correspondence saying that they have been in touch with prospective hostesses in this country, the names and addresses of whom are noted by the immigration officers. If the immigration officer is in doubt about whether a satisfactory arrangement has been made, he may make inquiries by telephone to the hostess before admitting the girl. That is the procedure which should be

followed. If my hon. Friend has examples of it not having been followed, we will look into them.
It is very difficult to make sure that any arrangement is watertight. Anyone can come here claiming to come as a visitor and then take employment in this country—as that has happened in some cases which have created publicity. The normal procedure followed when a girl says that she has come here on an au pair basis is that she is granted permission to stay for 12 months and the inquiries are made.
My hon. Friend poured a certain amount of scorn on the European agreement on au pair placement. Again, I would say that the Government are at the moment studying with great care the terms of the European agreement, and they are in sympathy, certainly, both with the general objects of the European agreement and with the sort of conditions which it prescribes, which are very much the same sort of conditions as those I have already referred to earlier as being in the pamphlet "Au Pair" which is provided by the Home Office.
I now want to turn to the problem of whether or not a legally enforceable contract and the legislation necessary for registration of an au pair agency really would meet the problem which my hon. Friend mentioned. I must make it clear that the Government are still studying the terms of the European agreement, and they hope shortly to be able to announce a decision on the action to be taken in respect of the European agreement, but I am not in a position to make an announcement about that this evening.
I can tell my hon. Friend that we will take careful note of what she says about some form of model contract. Indeed, I think there may be a great deal in what she says about attempting a more formal realisation of the recommended arrangements under which au pairs come into this country, but if her proposals amount to converting au pair into ordinary employment, then I suggest that that would virtually abolish the au pair as such, and I think it would be a pity.
It would mean any person coming here would have to have a work permit; it would mean that the hostess would be immediately responsible for—I think it


is—class one National Insurance contributions; and I think it would breach the basis of the informality of the arrangement which is the advantage of the successful au pair situation. When I say successful, I would again remind my hon. Friend that whereas rightly she has drawn the attention of the House from time to time to abuses of the au pair system, there are at the moment probably about 20,000 au pair girls here. This, in answer to a question, is purely an estimate; one cannot be sure; but it is believed to be a reasonable estimate. We believe that the vast majority of the arrangements work to the real advantage of both the hostesses and the girls themselves, and the Home Office has very little evidence of complaints, compared with the number of girls here at the moment.
May I suggest another difficulty which my hon. Friend, perhaps, ignored? That is the real difficulty of policing any system of a legally binding contract, or, indeed, of registration of au pair agencies. Many of the girls who come here do so as the result of individual contacts through friends or friends of friends, and do not come through any agency at all. It would be difficult to devise a scheme which would be watertight to avoid any of the abuses my hon. Friend mentioned and which would not require a vast army of inspectors to see carried out.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we take very seriously any complaints about abuses of the au pair system, and that the Home Secretary, in considering what action should be taken in regard to the possibility of a model agreement, or in regard to the European agreement, will bear in mind what she has said.
I am bound to say in the end, though, that I personally am doubtful as to whether unreasonable treatment of au pair girls by hostesses can be altogether prevented by Government action. Beyond establishing as clearly and as firmly as possible the respective rights and obligations of the au pair girls and their hostesses it is difficult to see how one can ensure by Government action that, for example, a girl is not required to work for unduly long hours. The normal remedy, of course, is for the girl who considers that her arrangements of working are unreasonable to decide herself to terminate the arrangements by leaving the household. If she is short

of money or otherwise needs help, she may apply for help in this country to her own consulate, to the social services, or to any of the many other welfare bodies whose work in this sphere—I gladly acknowledge the work done by my hon. Friend, too—deserves great credit.
I repeat, that in view of the number of people here working on an au pair arrangement, we have little evidence that the system is abused, but there will inevitably be cases of abuse.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend. We will bear in mind any information which my hon. Friend wishes to send to us and the views which she has expressed will be borne in mind in the review which is going on at this moment in this matter.

Orders of the Day — SPORT AND RECREATION

7.25 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian): I apologise to the Minister for his long vigil and the fact that the debate should come on at a time when even the Minister for Sport should have had a night's rest. But the Minister will recognise that there is little prospect in present parliamentary circumstances of any kind of lengthy debate on sport and recreation during normal hours. Thursday after Thursday, some of us have been asking the Government business manager, the Lord President of the Council, for such a debate.
I will come straight to the point. The first issue, of which I have given notice, I should like to get out of the way quickly, because it is relatively unimportant.
I am the convenor of the Parliamentary Labour Party Sports Group. We have had representations from the Rugby League about the whole issue of grants. The Rugby League points out that Government grants should depend on participation in a sport which is freely open. The Welsh Rugby League has solved this problem, and there is no difficulty there. The problem is whether the English and Scottish Rugby Union should be given a grant when they persist in excluding those who have been involved in some form or another in the Rugby League. In doing so, are not the English


and Scottish Rugby Union in defiance of the law?
I mention the case of a prisoner who was convicted on a capital charge. It was all right for him to play rugby football for the prison in which he was a prisoner. However, grotesquely enough, it was not all right when it came to his having played Rugby League football. I mention this case to highlight the absurdity to which this kind of situation can lead.
What steps are the Government going to take to make sure that their own regulations are implemented? If the Minister finds difficulty in answering that question this morning, perhaps he might reflect on it and write to me.
I have to declare that I have been the president, and am now the honorary vice-president, of the Scottish Amateur Basketball Association. I think that all people in minority sports are concerned about the level of grant. If I talk for the main part in my speech about football, I should not like it to be thought that I not concerned about minority sports.
Now I turn to the issues of major substance. I understand that the Minister has been Chairman for eight months of the Sports Council. There are rumours that there will be an independent chairman. I should like to record that it is a matter of regret to myself and to a number of my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party Sports Group—not least the former Minister for Sport who would have been here, but for the hour—that the chairmanship of the Sports Council should be taken out of the Government machine. I hope that we can be assured this morning that it will not be taken out of the Government machine, because there is a large capital programme on sport and this should be answerable to Parliament. In the other place on 10th February, Lord Sandford said in answer to Baroness Burton of Coventry:
And I can bear well the gentle chiding from the benches opposite, knowing that when my right honourable Friend does make his decision it will be the right one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 10th February, 1971, c. 139.]
There is some urgency about this decision.
On the next and related issue I should like to raise the subject of comparison with the Arts Council. On top of a grant of £11 million, the Arts Council has an extra £28 million. As one who is also deeply interested in the arts, of course I welcome this, but I cannot resist asking why more money is not available to the Sports Council. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about finance and what increase there has been in real terms.
The rest of my speech is bound up with the Report of the Chester Committee. I make no secret of the fact that the Parliamentary Labour Party Sports Group has had visits from Mr. Cliff Lloyd, the secretary of the Professional Footballers' Association, Derek Dougan, its chairman, and Terry Venables, a committee member, and in Scotland I had a long 2½ hour session with Mr. Archie Wright, the secretary of the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association, its chairman, Alec Ferguson and seven members of the committee. I am glad to learn from correspondence that before any parliamentary delegation go to the Department, the Minister himself will be meeting them.
I do not want to make things more difficult, because it is good and important that they should have a Ministerial interview, but I ask the Department to reflect on the issues such as fair representation of professional footballers. There must be some kind of tribunal for those who earn their bread and butter from football. I am not for every complaint against a referee going to a major tribunal: that would be unworkable and absurd. If a player had lawyers, one is conscious that the referee would have to have lawyers as well. Then we would have precisely the criticisms that some of us have been making of the Industrial Relations Bill, to the effect that it depends on too many lawyers.
What I would ask the Minister, the League and the Football Association to consider is whether those cases with the serious backing of the Professional Footballers' Association, should not go to a tribunal, just as an M.P. endorses cases for the Ombudsman; this would bring a real problem into manageable proportions. I am asking for the endorsement of the P.F.A. and the Scottish P.F.A. before any case goes to a


tribunal. A system based on this sort of concept would be mutually agreeable to those parties who are dissatisfied at present.
I hardly want to start criticising the appointment of the committee considering safety at grounds, since Walter Winter-bottom is secretary and the Minister has appointed my father-in-law as the chairman. Without bestowing advice on them, it is clear that cash will be required. We are talking about money for the improvement of grounds, and, in terms of safety, a great deal of money will be involved.
Paragraph 452 of Chester points out that more is involved than the safety of grounds. Standards generally must be raised. This brings into question the need for super grounds consistent with the international standards of the top clubs. It also involves something about which I care a great deal, and that is ground improvements linked with communal facilities and multi-sports centres. Anybody who has been to the Real Madrid Club will appreciate that there is a tremendous potential community rôle for the professional clubs.
Chester's answer to this was the levy board. I told the Labour Minister who was responsible for sport and other members of the former Labour Government that I regretted that that Administration did not tackle the issue of the levy board. In a sense, therefore, I am asking the present Government to do nothing that I did not ask the Government of my party to do. If the Government reject the levy board concept, what is their solution? Part of the purpose of this debate is to explore the mind of the Government on these matters.
I wish that we had the same system as they have in the American Congress and some other Parliaments of being able to insert into the record a full outline of details that an hon. Member might wish to put forward. In our system I am bound, with some care, to explain precisely what Chester proposed on this aspect, otherwise those reading the OFFICIAL REPORT may make little sense of my remarks, and I regard it as important to have these points on the record.
This Committee did a great deal of work and put forward, as its key suggestion, the proposal for a levy board.

It reviewed the main needs of the game and showed that some could be met with the existing resources of the various bodies concerned and that some could be suitably met only by the use of public funds. By a peculiar coincidence, the Minister of State at the Treasury is here tonight, I gather for other reasons. He might care to indulge in an early morning reflection on these matters.
Some important needs in sport are unlikely to be met, at least not at the pace and to the extent that we are convinced are desirable. In particular, there is need for improved facilities for the great mass of amateur clubs in the three countries; and as a former Olympic athlete, the Minister of State's heart, if not his mind, will appreciate this sentiment. There is need to develop grounds to provide regional stadia, so providing communal oportunities for sport. There are a number of other needs, such as coaching facilities, to which Chester draws attention.
The Committee points out that this extra money will have to come from the public, in one form or another. The spending of more public money on facilities for football is straightforward. Here is a game that provides health, exercise and pleasure for millions of players and spectators. This game commands wide coverage in the Press and on T.V. and radio. It is a topic of conversation throughout the nation.
It is indeed a national game. England's success in the World Cup and the success of a number of English clubs in European competitions, not to mention similar successes by Scottish clubs, makes it clear, if proof were needed, that Britain is closely connected with this worldwide competitive sport. Chester argues, and I agree, that it is not getting its full share of public money. We can be too easily put off by hundreds of thousands of pounds involving rather a few glamorous clubs.
Chester says:
It receives less direct grant than several other sports with much less mass appeal. It receives less national help than horse racing. In its turn, sport as a whole receives much less money than do the arts from the Arts Council.
Here I come back to comparisons within the Department:
It may be said that when expenditure on essential services is being cut or deferred is


not a good time to advocate more public spending on anything. We appreciate the need for economy in all aspects of national life. We trust, however, that the various measures being taken will remove the chronic balance of payments problem and allow the country to take full value of its great industrial and financial resources. In any case, we were asked to look ahead and do not feel obliged, therefore, to confine ourselves to the immediate situation.
The administrative and financial arrangement which Chester find most attractive
… is the establishment of a board financed by a small levy on the Pools. This could provide a body which could concentrate on the special needs of football and be financed from a source arising from the existence and popularity of football. The game is the basis for a considerable and profitable industry. In 1966–67 £122 million was staked on football pools, and though the Pool Promoters Association refused our request to reveal details of their accounts and their total profits there is reason to believe that after covering all expenses liberally, these profits are of the order of not less than £3 million a year.
The analogy with horse racing, though not exact, is worth drawing. The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, established a Horserace Levy Board responsible for assessing and collecting a levy and for applying it to the improvement of breeds of horses, the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education, and the improvement of horse racing. The income of the Board is obtained from two sources—from bookmakers, partly by way of a payment per office or place of business and partly according to profitability, and from the totalisator. About £3 million is thus made available annually.
This statutory levy was imposed by an Act of Parliament with the general support of the House of Commons. Without drawing too invidious a comparison, horse racing may be the sport of kings but it is hardly betting apart, the sport of the masses. The levy was imposed because it was appreciated that if horse racing declined so would betting—the two are closely related. The same cannot be said of football. Nevertheless the Pools exist because there is football and because the clubs are household names.
This £3 million a year to horse racing compares unfavourably with the less than £1 million paid by the Pools to the English and Scottish F.A.s and Leagues. Having regard to the needs of football, and the much wider degree of participation, whether as player or spectator, which the game attracts, we think that football is under-helped.
I go back to the point once again that this idea that football is a rich game is very general but is misplaced. If it is thought that there is a great deal of money in football, that impression is

gained by looking at clubs like Everton, Tottenham, Leeds, Manchester—only a handful of professional clubs. I am concerned to help those who are "rabbits", and those who enjoy playing the game.
Chester recommended:
A levy of 1 per cent. should be made on the gross proceeds of all pools after the deduction of the Pool Betting tax levied by the Government. It would be levied on all football pools, not just those managed by the Pool Promoters Association. It would be easier and cheaper to levy than the racehorse levy for the Customs and Excise Department already have all the necessary information in collecting the levy of 25 per cent. made by the Government.
This is a very important point. The administrative machinery is at least available.
In the year ended 31st March. 1967, some £122 million was staked in football pools out of which tax of £30·5 million was paid. In that year, therefore, the new levy would have raised £915,000. The Board of Customs and Excise estimate a 10 per cent. increase in 1967–68 so that a 1 per cent. levy should produce about £1 million. This in itself is not a large sum but it would be in addition to the money which the game already receives from this source. Moreover, we envisage that much of the new money would take the form of pump priming and therefore the beneficial effect should be much greater than the total of the levy.
I have talked to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden), who is a member of the Chester Committee. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of the pump priming rôle in the recommendation.
The Chester Committee made
this recommendation on the assumption that a substantial part of the levy would come out of the profit of the pools promoters. At the moment, the pools promoters are required to publish their profits if these are in excess of 3 per cent. of their total turnover. Presumably, at the time this rate was fixed, a profit of up to 3 per cent. on turnover was not considered unreasonable. If the levy we recommend is accepted, the figure of 3 per cent. should probably be reduced at the same time, thus implying that a lower return is now desirable. Otherwise the levy may greatly reduce the odds available to the pools investors.
It is my understanding that the pools were not entirely co-operative—I will not put it any higher—with the Chester Committee. In my considered view and that of some of my colleagues, it is about time that the Department grabbed this nettle and raised the whole issue in a rather abrasive fashion.


Chester went on to say that
The spending of the levy would be administered by a football levy board appointed partly by the Government and partly by certain representative bodies on the model approved by Parliament in the Horserace Levy Board. The Chairman of that body and two other members are appointed by the Home Secretary; two are appointed by the Jockey Club; one by the National Hunt Committee and two are ex-officio. Similarly in the cose of the football levy board we think that the chairman and two members should be appointed by a Minister"—
presumably now a Minister in the Department of the Environment. I understand that it was the feeling of the members of the Chester Committee at that time that it was a matter for the Department of Education and Science.
The Committee says that this body
should have no direct connection with any of the main bodies or clubs in football. The other members are more difficult to determine for unlike horse racing there are separate national bodies for association football for England. Scotland and Wales. There are also such important bodies as the English and Scottish Football Leagues.
There are also other bodies which ought to have some representation. I am not going into the details of what Chester thought as to the representation. would simply say that this is something that can be argued out later. There should be a strong Government-appointed element in any football levy board.
I come now to the question of money. The Committee said:
The money should be used for the improvement of facilities for association football in the three countries.
The Committee doubted whether much more of a closer definition of the terms of reference was needed than that. It had already indicated the kind of need that it thought deserved outside help. This is important:
But the Board should not adopt a passive role. It should take a positive and creative view of the long term needs of the game in the way of modern grounds and facilities. It should aim to stimulate new investment through the involvement of all the interests concerned —clubs, local authority, and possibly private capital. It should use its limited funds to encourage partnerships of this kind. Though its primary purpose would be to develop facilities for football some of the expenditure it would generate could be of benefit to other sports.
I was glad that the responsibility for sport was shifted from the Department of Education and Science to the Ministry

responsible for housing and local government. Having been P.P.S. to a former Minister of Housing and Local Government, I am certain that that Department has a tremendous potential for the good in combining with the local authorities. I hope that if a football levy board could be set up, a great deal of money would go to local authorities which, in my view, would spend it very well, earmarked for sport and not only football in particular.
I do not want to take up any more time, other than to say that it is no use going on having good intentions. Here we are faced with an urgent need for the development of proper recreational facilities in our country. We are very much behind a number of countries in Europe. It is not always a question of seeing grass that is greener on the other side of the hedge. In this case the Minister knows, I know and many other hon. Members know that what happens in other countries puts us to shame, not so much in relation to star clubs but in relation to the chance that the school leaver, who may not be very good and may have no particular talent, has of enjoying himself and developing his skill.
Many of us see sport as part of the development of the whole man or, equally as important, the whole woman. Therefore, these comparatively small sums are important. We should really focus our minds on how the money can be raised. It is very easy to say that all this should come out of an Exchequer grant, that we should not have the trouble of a football levy board. That was not the opinion of the Chester Committee. The members of that Committee had really worked out a scheme, had gone in depth—far more depth than is possible for a Member of Parliament to do—into the pros and cons of such propositions.
I think that in the very near future we should have some indication of the Government's reaction to the Chester Committee Report. I ask about Chester and about the Minister's own rôle in relation to the Sports Council. That is the purpose of the debate.

7.52 a.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough): I do not wish to follow completely the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), except to take up one point which interested me greatly.


He mentioned the American system of writing speeches into the record. I wish he would follow this practice more; he would find a hearty supporter in myself.
I have recently served on the Coal Industry Bill, and half the time of those Committee proceedings would have been saved if we had been able to follow that practice. Many hon. Members from mining constituencies made constituency speeches in that Committee, and at great length, and I would have been delighted if we could have adopted the practice of reading into the record. I feel that much more useful work could be done in this Chamber if we could adopt that system. We only have to consider the Bill which is being considered on the Floor of the House to see that a great many speeches could be written into the record, and then perhaps the Clauses on which we are now tramping through the Lobbies would get an airing. I heartily endorse that idea and I hope we can adopt it in the very near future.

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that people in the sporting world who read HANSARD would not see that there was a case made unless one went at length into a report which had already been published. Therefore, I apologise for doing so, although I do not regret it.

Mr. Proudfoot: I am afraid that I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman into the technical field of sport because this is a subject which does not cross my path in my everyday life as a Parliamentarian. I come from a town with great natural amenities. My old division was half rural. My present division, although it is not one of the most salubrious parts of the country, contains parts in between the industrial areas of the West Riding which are green and there is plenty of room for people to disport themselves.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman went on at such length about football. I have an idea, looking at my own children, that football is a little out of style with the youngsters today when they leave school. They have many facilities, most of which they provide themselves, for their leisure. I was born into a footballing era in County Durham. There was massive unemployment there, and a boy leaving school at 14 who

succeeded at football really made money. A look at the list of famous footballers of the time, many of whom came from the county, will assure anyone of that. I was a football fanatic when I was a small boy. We all were, but the world has changed a great deal, and young people are looking for other types of facilities. Every local authority seems to want its swimming pool. The older people talk about needing swimming pools as providing some kind of lifesaving exercise. A marvellous Olympic-size swimming pool has just been built in my division at Spenborough. Some bits have been blown off because it is such a modern design. The young people are using this facility. Immediately adjacent to it the local council has erected a recreation centre that could almost be described as a discotheque, and this, too, is really being used by the young people in Spen Valley. Things are happening in this country in that direction.
A few years ago I was lucky enough to go on a Parliamentary delegation to watch the Kennedy Presidential election. I met an old American friend in Washington, and we took the whole delegation to an American high school football match. I was amazed by the facilities there, and so were the rest of the delegation. The young Americans rolled up in cars with streamers out of the windows. We had to pay a dollar each to watch this school football match. My friend's daughter was running a hot dog stand, and it had a good old-fashioned commercial flavour to it. I suppose that over here that kind of venture would have been called a "project", and the teachers here would have had a very different approach. The school band with the drum majorettes tramped up and down the field at every interval. Most incredible of all, the school photographic society was making a 100 per cent. film record of the match. At one end of the field one coach was on a scaffold 50 feet high. The game was not just a question of physical sport. I suppose that in our State education system we got the idea of physical sport from the playing fields of Eton, and we place too much emphasis on it. If we could link it with other activities, as happened at the high school football match that I have described, many more


young people would be involved. I was a miserable ball player at school. I could not bat or bowl, but I was incredibly good in the slips. If I may boast, I once caught three men in one over. It is an odd thing to find among young people playing cricket today someone who is just a good fielder! In some respects we do not provide enough peripheral activities around sport for young people.
Young people have a very un-free-market attitude towards sport. They always want this and that facility, but they are irrational about the economics. We should try to point out to them the cost of the things they want and talk about self help. On that same delegation that I have mentioned I was taken to a place in Dayton, Ohio, where there was a recreational facility for young people that amazed me. It had its own swimming pool, dance rooms, workrooms, metal-working and woodworking facilities—an incredible array of facilities. It was all by voluntary contribution. Local industry and business had contributed towards it. Enthusiasts among the parents had got the money together and, most important, the young people had been involved in the creation of the whole thing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will try to point the way ahead to young people who need leadership in those directions.
I thought that the hon. Member for West Lothian over-emphasised football. If one looks round the field at what young people do and if one watches television, motor-cycle scrambling is certainly not an old man's sport. I have not heard anybody suggest that it should be subsidised from public funds. The young people go ahead and do that kind of thing themselves and they do it with great verve and interest.
I found myself a vice-president of the Drag Racing Society in my previous association with commercial radio. This was a great sport with great safety, although the speeds that the young people attain in their vehicles is frightening when one thinks of standards on the roads. The machinery which they make and modify, and the things they get up to with drag racing, are incredible. They are fortunate enough to find old aerodromes on which to operate.
When I think of that—it generally takes place on a Sunday—it reminds me of my days in the Forces, when I rode a bicycle quite a lot. Before the war, the great sport for the mass of young people was the cycling club. I remember, as a boy, seeing hordes of cyclists swish past in twos on Sunday mornings and afternoons. They rode incredible distances. That was the major way of getting out from the industrial areas. I suppose that traffic, the motor car, the motor bike and the fact that everybody today is much more affluent, have put the push bike out of style.
I would be an enthusiast to see more young people take up flying in light aircraft. This has been said since the days of Hitler, yet as a country we have never been able to find systems by which to get more and more young people into the air. Gliding is obviously cheaper than flying, and I hope that gliding clubs will see whether they can bring in more young people.
We see from the newspapers how out of style football is becoming for young people. Every weekend we hear of a potholer who is trapped somewhere. During the past weekend, one lost his life. Young people do not necessarily go in for group or team sports. Team sports were the thing when I was a young man, but today many more young people partake in individual sports in which they have to prove themselves. One has only to go to the Lake District, or anywhere where there are hills, and watch the young people taking part in mountaineering.

Mr. Ronald Bray (Rossendale): Would not my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental reason for people going into what I call the more exotic or dangerous sports is, perhaps, to relieve themselves of frustration so that they can get a sense of achievement?

Mr. Proudfoot: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It is a reaction to a society which is over-dragooned.
Hon. Members will be familiar with an expression which is common in the North American Continent. Any article which is self-designed and not mass-produced is described as being "custom built". With much the same idea in mind, people decorate their motor cars and try to make them look different, and


many of the designs appear to be inspired by "pop" artists of great individual talent.
Another very popular post-war sport is under-water swimming. It really started during the war, when skin divers were used in an offensive manner against the enemy. It has become a widespread sport, and it is still spreading. The equipment required is not cheap, but that does not seem to deter young enthusiasts from finding the money and taking part.
However, I am sure that not all the sports and pastimes in which young people want to take part are necessarily physical and vigorous. Having run a pirate radio ship a few years ago, I know quite a lot about youth. My involvement with that type of radio station brought me in contact with young disc jockeys and the youngsters who paid attention to them. To my surprise, I discovered that there were 500 pop groups at one time in the City of Hull. That will probably stop anyone going to Hull again.
My generation tends to moan that young people do not how how to entertain themselves. Probably we do not all like pop music, but the fact remains that 500 groups of youngsters got together in Hull and made their own recreation. They were creative as well. Some of them have made export earnings of millions of dollars for the country. Out of their pastime and recreation has grown an enormous industry.
Over the last quarter of a century, people have been asking what we shall do with all the leisure time that we expect to have in the future. Eminent people have worried about it, talked about it, and written about it. If they paid more attention to young people, many of their fears would be allayed. My own children, for example, need no help. They know how to spend their leisure time.
It is part of the Protestant ethic which prompts hon. Members of most age groups to say that a person who is not working is probably being sinful. However, I am convinced that today's teenagers take part in many sports and pastimes which are neither sinful nor slothful. They really know how to use their leisure, and for one, am not at all

disturbed about the future, when there will be more and more time for leisure.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will look at the possibilities of self-help and that he will encourage youngsters to do more for themselves. I make only one contribution to my hon. Friend's thinking in this connection. It occurs to me that it might be possible to publish, on the lines of the Highway Code, a booklet on programmed learning suggesting ways in which young people can organise themselves.
My teenage son, for example, recently got himself elected chairman of the local branch of the Young Conservatives, much to my surprise. I did not even know that he was a member of the Young Conservatives. At the moment, he is vigorously wallpapering rooms and trying to build up an organisation of young people. He asks me odd questions. But he is breaking new ground. He might be said to be re-inventing the wheel, but he is discovering how to do it on his own.
Decimal coinage, for instance, has been taught in the Post Office by programmed learning, and young people become familiar with programmed learning at school. I should like the Minister to assure us that there will be some kind of do-it-yourself book on how to set up a small organisation, how to keep records, how to run committees and so on, a book organised on the lines of the programmed learning texts with which young people are now familiar. By this method rather than reliance on money from the State or the local authorities we could make a greater contribution to the welfare and enjoyment of our young people.

8.11 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch): I sympathise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your difficult job of remaining in the Chair for so long and having to hear the many different views of all who may wish to speak.
I am glad to think that this and previous Governments have made it possible for there to be a Minister for Sport. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), I have a young family, some having passed through their education and into their careers, and I know the value of


sport in their lives. I often wonder whether the methods in our prep school were sufficiently pointed towards sport and whether they should not have provided more sporting facilities at that early stage of our lives. It is in the early part of his life that a child should be told the basic ethic of what sportsmanship may mean to his career later in life.
I remember as a child learning that little verse:
When the One Great Scorer comes, To write against your name He writes not if you won or lost. But how you played the game".
That is one of the prune fundamentals of life.
The emphasis in prep schools, especially the independent schools, is on ensuring that a child passes the common entrance examination, but more time should be devoted to the ordinary common sports which we know and love and which we can see profiting people so much as they grow older.
I am concerned about the growing number of affluent young people. They have far more money than we had as youngsters. There are opportunities for them to take up and use in all walks of life. If we are to overcome the increase in holiganism and some of the greater areas of delinquency, we have to find some way out of the problem for these affluent young people. No society should exploit the young, but we know that these young people are often exploited and misguided and misled. The emphasis must be on how to deal with the affluent young. A great problem of delinquency emerges through affluence, because local communities do not give enough time to considering providing facilities for the young, who wander the streets with money to burn in their pockets.
In my constituency we have a drugs problem. It is a problem which gives us a serious headache, and we are contemplating setting up a special centre to deal with young people who are strong and vigorous to start with, but who lose their zest for life when they come under the wretched influence of drugs.
I was in New York a little while ago and visited a remand centre where young people are treated, straightened out, and become good citizens again. The reason why many of them arrived at that centre

was because they were not directed in any form of sport or what could be termed outside interests. We have to guide the energies of the young into constructive channels, and no doubt the Minister is giving some thought about how to do this.
Some months ago I talked about swimming pools in this House. This is a subject that arouses a great deal of interest and which provides a suitable outlet for young peoples' energies. The more pools we can provide the better it will be for our young people. We must train them in this sport, thus equipping them to deal with emergencies at all times. There is much loss of life due to drowning and in the seaside constituency which I represent an increasing amount of swimming instruction is required and given.
Many youngsters seem to be happier with "boudoir sports" rather than field sports. However, youngsters are interested in shooting and there is no difficulty in raising a number of boys to go beating. They are debarred from using a 4, 10 or 12-bore gun because it is beyond their means. Perhaps special shooting schools could be established, teaching the boys the importance of handling guns properly. I well remember Colonel Beaufoy's Shooting Homilies, at page 8, which went something like this:
If a sportsman true you be, Listen carefully to me. Never, never let your gun pointed be at anyone. That it may Unloaded be. matters not the least to me.
It ends up in the eighth verse:
You may kill or you may miss, but at all times think of this: All the pheasants ever bled won't repay for one man dead.
Perhaps we could have special shooting schools, for all levels of society. It is a sport which takes people out of themselves and puts them into contact with Nature.
Sailing is a sport which seems to be out of reach of many youngsters, largely because of a lack of facilities. If special clubs could be set up, even within the Greater London area or near it, it would be possible to get youngsters to start sailing and then to aspire to sailing in the Solent. I hope that the Minister will look at this.
The old traditional forms of sport have kept us well ahead of the world in sportsmanship and sporting achievement


in sports like rugby—which has done so much for our young men—football, cricket, baseball and the like.
One sees the longing in young people's faces to participate in hunting. This is a form of field sport worth considering, and there is an opportunity for local communities to discover what it would cost to set up a riding school for the young to develop their ability. We have to think hard about how to eradicate the violence of youth today. That is a tall order but the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme is doing tremendously well in helping forward our young and giving them motivation and challenge.
Over the years, one sees the reasons for many of the difficulties our young people are facing in the legacy of two wars and the near-collapse of Christian principles, the abdication of parents from responsibility for their children.
There has to be an alternative to the family life set up by the community to provide attractive entertainment facilities for sports of all kinds. I hope we shall see this developed under this Government.

8.22 a.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison (Maldon): I hope my hon. Friend will not expect me to follow him in his poetry quotations. If I did, I could use only one:
There's a breathless hush in the Close tonight—
Ten to make and the match to win—A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
because I hear that in Sydney Cricket Ground at the moment there is a disturbing situation with five wickets down and Snow has broken his finger; but it looks as if England has produced another bowler who can produce bumpers and this Test Match is in the bag for England.
There are two aspects of Government aid to sport which I should like to bring before the House. There is the necessity for co-ordinated Government and semi-Government authorities in providing facilities for sport and recreation throughout the country, and the necessity to co-ordinate available funds.
For instance, it seems crazy when there is a school with a first-class swimming pool which is not open to the rest of the community and when there is a swimming pool owned by a local author-

ity which is not used to the maximum. There should be co-ordination between education authorities and swimming clubs to ensure maximum use of these facilities. We know the enormous cost of building swimming pools. Plans are being made to raise money for one in Braintree, in my constituency, the cost of which will be a minimum of £100,000. My guess is that there will be great difficulty in raising the funds, but if the education authority, the three local authorities in the area and the community are able to get together and a proper 25-metre pool, not a status symbol pool, is planned, something can be done. It is possible that this type of facility will be available in the foreseeable future.
Too often we say—and I have seen this happen in Colchester, near where I live—that the swimming pool must be bigger than the one in the nearest town: It must have facilities for competitions and a bigger diving pool. The diving portion of a pool is grossly under-used in almost every pool I know, and it is necessary only in a particular area—possibly in the area of each of the regional sports councils—for there to be one pool or at most two pools with adequate diving facilities to enable diving of Olympic standard to be practised and training to take place.
For every area to want big galleries for crowds which will be used once a month possibly is wasteful of administration costs and capital which is required to build the project. There would be an added incentive given for co-ordinated schemes of the right size to be carried out, particularly where swimming facilities are necessary.

Mr. Proudfoot: Would my hon. Friend say a word or two about the possibility of mass-produced, industry-built swimming pools?

Mr. Harrison: This is a point close to my heart. Several years ago I went to Cologne to look at the sports facilities there. In that city there is the main swimming pool, with diving facilities, and in the communities round about there are identical pools which are made to a standard plan with standard fittings. They can be produced industrially so that the cost can be cut. Reductions can be made in the cost of manufacture of the heating plant and even of the moulds necessary for the concrete when it is necessary to


build a reinforced concrete bath, which is required beyond a certain size because the fibre pools are difficult to move and to support once they are in position.
First, the Government should do everything they can to produce the right facilities. The facilities should be fully utilised and there should be the maximum co-ordination of the authorities concerned.
Secondly, the Government should enable a certain amount of planning to be carried out by local authorities. Braintree Urban District Council, Braintree Rural District Council, Halstead Council and the Witham Council got together and decided to build a golf course. They had the advantage of a benevolent landowner who enabled them to buy park land around a big old building now used for an old people's home.
This is a magnificent site. The golf club, whose course is to be taken over for road widening, and also for further industrial expansion purposes, borrowed a considerable sum of money with the encouragement and help of the previous Government. That was two and a half years ago. It was implied, though no undertaking was given, that further loan sanction would be granted the following year in order that work might continue on making this glorious area into a proper, viable golf course.
Then what happened? The Ministry said, "Oh, no. There is no undertaking, and we could not give the loan sanction." So 12 months ago the club, in desperation, rang me up and said, "What can we do? We have mortgaged this place to the local authority and now we find that we cannot get any permission to raise more funds to go ahead and start this golf course and start bringing in revenue to service the loans which we have already raised." So a useless millstone is hung round this small club's neck.
I would ask my hon. Friend whether something can be done to see that real use can be made of this facility. It is tremendously important, because four or five local authorities have got together over this project—and that is an achievement, getting them to work together. It is absolutely essential, where small clubs or local authorities are making provision over a number of years to help to build

a sports facility of one sort or another, that the Government should say to them, "You can have loan sanction"—for so many thousand pounds—" and you can have loan sanction for the same amount next year" and so on, so that some plan can be evolved so that a project will not become a millstone or a potential facility not ultilised.
I would ask my hon. Friend to consider these specific points. First of all, a way of co-ordinating the local authorities, education authorities, community sports councils, and the Government in providing sports facilities so that there is the maximum use of the resources and facilities available. Secondly, I would ask him to see if it is possible to enable people, councils and clubs, to plan several years ahead. I make a special plea that when he is looking at what provision for loan sanctions is left over in his Department at the end of the year he will consider this golf course, so that this very worthwhile scheme can be enabled to go ahead.

8.33 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray (Rossendale): I have listened to the last four speeches with extreme interest, but I would presume to strike a note of caution. I am speaking not of the constituency I represent but of the one in which I live, and that is Skipton, which is noted for its potholes, adventure courses, Duke of Edinburgh's Award competitions, and the like. A difficulty which we find is that people enter these various competitions and adventure courses and exercises when they are extremely inexperienced and often ill-equipped. My family and I have had the duty of helping out no fewer than 50 or 60 entrants into these adventures. Many of them do not know or understand the environment or the weather conditions. There are many potholes in the area of Kettlewell and Starbotton and in Mossdale where four or five lads lost their lives. Now there is a move to re-open these potholes, so that these adventures can be continued.
It is said in my area, perhaps with a degree of humour, that if anyone wishes to be arrested he has only to go to the local policeman and say, "Potholes", and he will be pulled in straight away. That is because these hard-working members of a public service spend almost


every weekend disentangling people from caves, cliff faces, and the like.
I was pleased, two years ago, that the West Riding County Council sent out a party of school teachers to teach themselves self-preservation. It was a worthwhile exercise, because leaders of parties of youngsters are invariably schoolmasters or schoolmistresses. These leaders are often ill-equipped to take responsibility in conditions of fog, mist, or semi-torrential downpours of rain. I have often seen leaders of these exercises come down a fell side not knowing where they were, get lost in the fog and mist, and then take some unfortunate youngsters for another six or seven miles through these conditions hoping to find the way.
I must admit that on many occasions on my own land I have been lost in identical conditions. If anyone should know his way around it is someone who lives there, or, for that matter, people who shepherd the area—and even shepherds get lost in certain conditions.
I hope that the Minister will emphasise the need for local authorities and education authorities to ensure that those leading exercises or adventure sports of any type should first acquaint themselves with the dangers and rigours which may ensue and be able to communicate that knowledge to those who in turn they train.
The police force has ample work to do in crime prevention, traffic control, and so on, particularly during holiday periods. To mobilise rescue parties of two or three members of a police force in an immediate area whose patch in each case covers 14 or 20 miles is absolutely wrong. I ask the Minister to consider whether, where rescues are made necessary through foolhardiness or ignorance, those responsible for the escapades should in some way be debited with the cost.

8.38 a.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely in his remarks
I want to talk about the inland water-ways and the opportunities for recreation and sport for young people upon them. For three years now the waterways have been administered under their present organisation. Already there are cer-

tain creakings and indications of the need for more money and facilities for young people on our waterways. There are many excellent voluntary bodies—youth clubs, and so on—which do extremely good work; but unless the 2,000 miles of the main channel are kept open all these good voluntary efforts will be lost. A major look is needed at the inland water-ways structure.
Since the present board was set up, it has had an advisory council, on which I have had the honour to serve since its inception. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has been my colleague, almost my "pair" on this. It has done valuable work for us, but we are acutely aware of the lack of cash for the board and of certain hived off interests in my hon. Friend's Department.
The Water Resources Bill, at present before the House, unless amended, could be a grave impediment on the financial structure of the board. My hon. Friend's Department does not always look on other legislation as closely as it might to consider the interests of the board. Other nationalised industries tend to be the main preoccupation of their sponsoring Department, whereas the board is only a smallish part of my hon. Friend's day's work. Therefore, I feel that it does from time to time get shelved and pushed aside in the main preoccupations of the Department.
I would therefore ask my hon. Friend to give the closest possible attention from the point of view of this debate to the needs of the board. The board is grateful for his personal interest since he has been in office, but we need a closer look at the financial aspects of this matter.

8.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the very wide-ranging debate which has been under way since 7 a.m. Very shortly, hon. Members who are up at this hour, whether as a result of a late sitting or simply because they normally get up at this time, will have swimming facilities available to them within fairly close reach of the Chamber, and there will be squash facilities as well. The swimming facilities will be in the Great Smith Street Baths, which belong to the


Westminster City Council. Hon. Members will be able to use this exclusively from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Tuesday mornings and between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Wednesday evenings. I thought it appropriate to start by telling hon. Members opposite, none of whom is here, of those who took part in the debate—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): Hon. Members on this side, who knew that the Government intended to move the Closure, saw no reason to wait.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member will no doubt make his own speech if he comes to it.
I thought it appropriate to say this because, at the end of a long night's sitting, there are few things which I should prefer to do more, other than going to bed perhaps, than to go to the Westminster swimming baths.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who opened the debate, ranged very wide, dealing, for example, with grants to Rugby League clubs. The short answer is that Rugby League is a professional sport, and Rugby Union is an amateur sport, and the rules are quite clear on that. Amateur sports are eligible for grant; professional sports are not.
The hon. Member for West Lothian then raised the question of the Sports Council, and I was glad to have his opinion and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), which he offered by proxy. The Government are considering the future of the Sports Council. I undertook to its members that before any decision was made, they would be consulted. We have consulted them carefully and the Government are now considering their views and the views of all the other interested bodies. As soon as it is possible for an announcement to be made, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will provide an opportunity for one to be made.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to the Professional Footballers' Association. As he knows, I have with great pleasure agreed to receive a deputation from the Association; and after I have had an opportunity of discussing their points of view with them, I will gladly meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from the Labour Sports Group in the House.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that I should, first, meet the professional footballers.
He touched next on the inquiries into football safety and in one respect he was not quite right. There are, in fact, two exercises going on and they are separate. The first is the examination of the legal necessities that might arise in the event that the present arrangements for crowd safety are inadequate. It may be necessary to make recommendations to change the present ways in which local authorities inspect grounds. These wide-ranging considerations are now before Lord Wheatley and I am sure that we can look forward to a thorough report from him as soon as he is able to submit it.
I felt, particularly following the recent disaster and the several incidents since then, that it was not right to wait perhaps many months for the Wheatley Commission to complete its work. I felt, that it was urgent now to provide those who attend professional football matches, or whose children attend them, with some assurance that the Government are anxious about crowd safety. This is why we invited Mr. Winterbottom to make himself available at once to go to clubs where big matches are to be played during the balance of the season and to have a commonsense look at the arrangements for crowd safety.
Mr. Winterbottom is supported in this venture by a senior police officer with great experience of crowd control and by a surveyor-engineer from my Department. These three gentlemen are now making themselves available to all clubs which wish to avail themselves of their services to give some commonsense advice on the spot and to do it now, while the Wheatley Commission is undertaking its important work.
Hon. Members have spoken about the crucial question of expenditure. The hon. Member for West Lothian made a comparison between expenditure on sport and expenditure on art, and I understand the view he expressed. It has been put to me by many people in the sporting world. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman, before he lectures my hon. Friends on this subject, that during the period of office of my predecessor—to whose enthusiasm and vigour in this sphere I


willingly pay tribute—public expenditure on sport went down year by year. Indeed, it is still not as high as it was in 1964, when the former Conservative Government left office. I must, therefore, tell the hon. Gentleman that any criticisms he may have about Government expenditure on sport must be directed against the Labour Government, who cut so drastically local authority expenditure on matters that were vital for the advancement of sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) moved the discussion away from football to a range of many other kinds of sport. He spoke of some of his own experiences. He spoke, if I may say so, very wisely in saying that today people more and more preferred to participate in sport and not simply just to watch it. This is the most important single thing that is happening today; namely, that instead of sitting in their armchairs watching television, or perhaps going to the football ground and standing there watching others at their games, today there is a revolution in sport in the sense that young people themselves prefer to participate. It is a remarkable and eloquent comparison to say that on an average summer weekend there are now more people messing about in and around boats than there are attending professional football matches on an average winter weekend. That is a dramatic change towards participation by the British people in sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) spoke with very great authority on this matter, for he was himself for a period Chairman of the Eastern Regional Sports Council, and he did that task very well indeed. He spoke very wisely in saying that it is essential that we should get better use of our existing facilities—a point to which I shall return. I wish now only to mention his own constituency interest in the Braintree golf course. He understands the complexities, and the financial limitations, within which I have to operate, but following his remarks I can tell him that I will gladly get out the Braintree golf course file and look again to see what can be done there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) spoke with

equal authority on the subject of the inland waterways. One of the many advantages of the creation of the Department for the Environment is that it has enabled us to bring together in the same Department responsibilities for transport —which, of course, includes the British Waterways Board—as well as responsibilities for the water industry as a whole, local authorities and sport and recreation. That means that we are able to get a grip on the possibilities for recreation and sport on the inland waterways better, I believe, than ever before. I take my hon. Friend's point, and will look very sympathetically at his suggestions.
The main gravamen of the debate is that the House has demonstrated that it senses that our country is in the presence of nothing less than a recreational explosion, Mr. Michael Dower, whom the hon. Member for Small Heath knows as well as I do, has called this recreational explosion "the fourth wave". Whatever name it is given, the evidence is clear cut and overwhelming. More people, more affluence, more time off from work —these things have created a veritable tidal wave of demand for leisure activities. More people are playing sport, more people are starting playing earlier and carrying on playing longer. There is a surge to the lakes and shores. There are long queues for golf club membership. Tens of thousands of clubs are clamouring for more sports halls, running tracks and squash courts.
The Government welcome this leisure explosion. It is, we feel, a sign that the British people want not just more but better. They are reaching out in their millions for a higher quality of life. They are no longer content with a television set, a car and wall-to-wall carpeting. They want to escape, and they are right to want to escape, on occasion from the pre-package society into a world of physical contest.
I believe that this sports explosion is something that we can and should welcome as a positive good. At the same time, we must face the fact that the demand for facilities, outdoors as well as indoors, is imposing an insatiable pressure upon our resources, physical as well as financial.
We are fortunate perhaps as a country to have a large and in some ways an


enviable recreational infrastructure. We are blessed with large numbers of public parks, cricket pitches, recreation grounds, bowls clubs and swimming baths. Unfortunately, a large proportion of this huge sports plant is becoming, or already has become, obsolete. Some of it, as population moves from one part of the country to another, is in the wrong place. Many of our older municipal swimming pools are cold and draughty. A large number, being out of doors and unheated, cannot be used, except by the very hardy, for six to eight months of the year, and the same applies to a goodly proportion of our public tennis courts. Being grassed and unlighted, they are out of use when it rains and during the evening hours between October and May, and too many matches must be called off.
At the same time there are in this picture some bright spots. I have seen some excellent facilities growing up. One by one I have been visiting the C.C.P.R. national centres-Glenmore, Bisham Abbey, Cowes, Lilleshall, Crystal Palace and the rest, and I look forward to the completion of the national rowing facilities at Holmepierrepoint in Nottingham.
I have been very impressed by the new dual-use centres in Nottinghamshire, the new sports centres at Basingstoke and Cardiff, and the way in which derelict land in many areas has been cleared for sporting use in Lancashire, South Wales and the North-East.
So the picture is one of more affluence and more leisure creating more pressure on our sporting resources. At the same time, it is a picture of progress with new facilities in some areas.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister comes to the end of his speech could he return to the issue of money; because, after all, for nearly 20 minutes I went into detail on the main point of the Chester Committee Report, namely, a possible Football Levy Board? Also, would the hon. Gentleman go into some detail and substantiate his claim that between 1965 and 1970 expenditure on sport decreased?

Mr. Griffiths: The answer to the last point very simply is that, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the loan sanctions that were available and if he will look at the actual out-turn of local authority expenditure on sport between 1964 and

1969, he will find that it decreased all the time. It was simply one of those aspects of Government economies that had this effect. I accept at once that there was a modest increase in the National Exchequer's out-turn on sports expenditure, but the local authorities, which carried the lion's share of the expenditure, saw their out-turn go down steadily year by year.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath): The hon. Gentleman must know that that is not accurate. In fact, there was a considerable drop in the aftermath of devaluation and the standstill which occurred at that time, but I think I am right in saying that every year since 1967 capital expenditure on sport rose. This year it has risen by £2 million from £8 million to £10 million. In the light of that, how the hon. Gentleman can say that it has dropped very year is beyond me.

Mr. Griffiths: It is a very simple answer. The hon. Gentleman says that it has now risen from £8 million to £10 million. That shows that it is beginning to get back close to the level at which it was left by my right hon. Friends when we left Government in 1964, when it was £12 million. Those are the facts.

Mr. Denis Howell: Indeed—–12 million for Great Britain. The £10 million to which I referred was for England and Wales.

Mr. Griffiths: I should be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that his memory is at fault and that the situation is very plainly that throughout the years 1964 to 1970 local authority expenditure on sport went steadily down and that it is still nowhere near the level at which it stood when we left office in 1964.
I come to the point on which the hon. Member for West Lothian concentrated, namely the Chester Report and whether it was feasible for there to be a levy of an additional 1 per cent. on the gross profits of football pools. This is after a deduction for the pool betting levy tax. Of course, I am aware of the recommendation. I have studied the Chester Report in the greatest detail, and I recognise the attractions of finding a new and regular source of cash of this kind. I was not quite clear whether the hon. Gentleman intended to confine the


1 per cent. levy for the benefit of football or whether, as many would have suggested, it should be spread for the benefit of sport as a whole.
While we are considering this recommendation, there are one or two problems. First, there is certainly a great lack of unanimity among the football authorities. For example, the Football Association has said of this suggestion that it is the main recommendation of the Chester Committee and the association hopes that the Government will implement it. That is a clear-cut statement, which I am glad to put on the record. At the same time we must accept what the Football League has to say. It says that it is feared that a further Government levy would reduce the league's income from the pools organisations, which is based on a percentage turnover less tax. The league's attitude is that it does not want anything to do with it. It is no use trying to press ahead with these schemes if some of the most powerful bodies in football are not happy to have them. We are looking at them very carefully, but that point cannot be burked.
I must say, particularly in the presence of my three hon. Friends from the Treasury, that there are necessarily some objections from the Exchequer. When it comes to sporting matters I normally find myself on the opposite side of the negotiating table from my hon. Friends from the Treasury. The cost of such an additional levy would be borne by the punters and not the promoters. Therefore, the prize money would be that much less, which would remove a source of potential revenue to the Treasury.
A second objection is that it would be a form of indirect taxation not available to the Exchequer, and inevitably would promote similar demands by others. It would preempt taxable capacity and revenue for a particular field of expenditure, and by hypothecating funds reduce public control of expenditure.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister is delivering word for word the brief I used to receive from the Treasury a year or so ago. I find it as disagreeable to hear it from him as it was when I delivered it myself. All his arguments can be advanced against the Horserace Betting

Levy Board. If the Government reject out of hand this proposal for a football levy board, what do they propose to do about the Horserace Betting Levy Board?

Mr. Griffiths: That is an entirely different problem. In any case, I have undertaken that we shall look at the question. My party at least will look at it responsibly, and we shall take into account a proper control of public expenditure. That is entirely as it should be.
I do not wish to detain the House for very much longer. But I must say that it is not only to the Exchequer that we should look when it comes to finding new sources of investment in sport. For example, private enterprise has an important role to play. I have seen a number of commercial sports centres, and on the whole they are good.
Another source of possible new investment is industry. With its rather extensive sports fields it could more easily make them available to the community at large.
I also mention television and radio. The British television industry gives good service to sport, not only by promoting and publicising it but by its cash payments to the governing bodies and individual teams in return for their broadcasting rights. But I sometimes wonder whether sport drives a hard enough bargain with the broadcasting media. I am optimistic that the development of local radio, especially, as I hope, commercial local radio, may open up another source of broadcasting, support and revenue helpful to local sports.
Some of the main policies must await another day, but the hon. Gentleman has done a service, even at this late hour, in raising the matter. I must also thank those of my hon. Friends who have contributed so eloquently to the debate and say that, whatever else may be said, the present Government are committed to the promotion of healthy sport in the country, but that they believe, above all, that it is the participation of the many which is more important than simply bringing on the excellence of the few.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before proceeding to the next business, I have an observation to make about the debate on the Consolidation Fund Bill.
Out of 28 topics originally on my list, only eight were discussed in nearly 17 hours. According to my calculations, which may be inaccurate, apart from Ministerial speeches, there were four speeches of over 40 minutes each, six of over 30 minutes each, and nine of over 20 minutes each.
The House must draw its own conclusion from those figures.

Orders of the Day — MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the annual sum of £5,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for the payment of an annuity to the Right Honourable Horace Maybray King, lately Speaker of the House of Commons, and that, if Una King, his wife, survives him, the annual sum of £1,667 be granted as aforesaid, for the payment of an annuity to her.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have selected the first two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), to leave out '£5,000' and insert £4,000', and to leave out '£1,667' and insert '£1,250'.

9.8 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): I am amazed to discover that, apparently, the Financial Secretary does not feel that it is necessary to give the House some explanation for the introduction of this Motion. This is the first time in my memory that such a state of affairs has existed when the Government have desired to raise a sum of money of a continuing character without giving hon. Members a logical and reasonable explanation.
I shall have a word or two to say later about the Government's attitude to this matter, and the way in which they are trying to flout the democratic will and traditions of this Chamber. However, before coming to that, I hope that I can begin by getting 100 per cent. support from both sides when I say that we owe a very sincere vote of thanks and deep appreciation to the Library staff for the excellent work undertaken on behalf of hon. Members on both sides. In addition, I want to pay them a tribute for the way in which they have given me some historical background on this matter for Mr. Speaker King's pension.
I begin by saying that every word I now utter will be in the past tense and will not in any way refer to you, Mr. Speaker, or to any other occupant of the Chair, for I appreciate that it would be out of order to make an adverse comment about any occupant of the Chair. The Library staff kindly gave me a factual historical background to the whole subject of the Speaker's pension.
The first Speaker to be awarded a pension was Arthur Onslow, who was Speaker for 33 years, from 1728 to 1761. I emphasise that it was for 33 years, because that will be relevant to my later argument. Mr. Manners-Sutton had a pension granted to him, but in that instance it was passed on, like the hereditary titles in another place, to his sons and heirs. They did a little better in those days than has been the practice in recent years right up to the most recent case, that of Speaker Hylton-Foster in 1965.
It may be unknown to some newer Members and even some older Members that it is a tradition that the House of Commons should oppose Mr. Speaker's pension and I am, therefore, not the unique animal which I have been called. I am following good precedent, because as far back as 1895, when Mr. Speaker Peel retired, that great Speaker still so often quoted in the House, his pension was opposed by none other than the late James Keir Hardie. I am proud to be able to follow a Member who came originally from West Ham, South, a constituency which adjoins mine. Strangely enough, he, too, moved for a reduction of £1,000 a year on grounds somewhat similar to those which I shall advance; namely, that he was dissatisfied with


giving pensions to Speakers when old-age pensioners were being shabbily treated, as they then were.
In 1905 James Keir Hardie moved a similar reduction in the pension of Speaker Gully, and in 1928, on Speaker Lowther's retirement, Mr. J. R. Clynes, on behalf of the Official Opposition, amazing as that may seem to some of my hon. Friends, moved a similar reduction. The pension of Speaker Clifton-Brown was opposed, as was that of Speaker Morrison. I am following in good footsteps.
I should like to comment on the procedure adopted by the Government in this matter. It is rather strange how quickly this Government can act when they want to. As soon as Mr. Speaker King retired, within a week or so, there were the official Government-inspired Press leaks. We have become accustomed to these now from all Governments. I exonerate the present Government from any charge of starting a new practice. The leak was designed to sound out public opinion, appearing mainly in the quality newspapers. The Government started a hare running, suggesting that Mr. Speaker King would get a pension of £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000. They let it circulate and then settled upon £5,000.
Within a few weeks of that hare being run the Government tabled a Motion. It is amazing how quickly they can table Motions when they want to. This was done in such a way as to preclude—or so they thought—any debate on the subject because they did not want the House of Commons to debate this in a democratic way. Always they put it down as the very last item, after a very long agenda, hoping that it would go through on the nod at two or three o'clock in the morning when all hon. Members had gone home after a long sitting on the Industrial Relations Bill. Thus the Government would be saved any explanation such as the Minister will have to give now. In addition, public attention would not have been drawn to this and the Press would not have got hold of the matter.
Keir Hardie and J. R. Clynes opposed proposals like this. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) does not have to stop. He can go. I have been here all night and I am still making my speech.
The original opposition was on grounds of the failure to deal with the underprivileged sections, the old-age pensioners and the millions who should have been better treated but were not. There are millions—old-age pensioners, those on welfare benefits of various kinds and the lower-paid workers—who are interested in this subject. That is why I thought it wrong for this to go through without debate.
I also think it is wrong not to have had this debate at a reasonable time. I am adducing reasons why I think the Government who claim to believe in democracy, should have let it come on at a reasonable time, and should not play cat and mouse and try to get it through on the nod. If the hon. Member wants to interject, I have plenty of time—

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North): What time is reasonable for democracy and what is not?

Mr. Lewis: The usual time the Government put down is 2.30 to 10.30, in the daytime and not after an all-night sitting on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I do not know when this has been done before, after the Consolidated Fund Bill has been closured, but the hon. Gentleman can look up the records himself. I have the debate, and hon. Members can go.
The Leader of the House is in some way a party to this. I would have liked to see him here because I would like to know his reasons.
I have nothing against Dr. King personally. He is a great friend of mine who came to the House while I was a Member. I was a good friend of his, and I hope I still am. I was one of the hon. Members who canvassed for him to become Mr. Speaker when many hon. Members on both Front Benches who now eulogise him and say what a wonderful Speaker he was did their utmost to prevent him becoming Speaker. Therefore, I am not against the former Mr. Speaker King. When he was a Member I supported many of his campaigns, particularly when they were in favour of more being done for old-age pensioners. If he were here now, he would probably support me on the general principle of this issue. I gave Mr. Speaker King personal notice that when he retired—and this imminent retirement was "leaked" in the Press—I would oppose


his pension Motion whenever it came up for debate, not on the question of personality, but on the principle, as I had done previously with regard to Mr. Speaker Morrison and Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.
This was the object of the exercise but there happened to be one Member here, the hon. Member for West Ham, North, who would not be worn down. Night after night, morning after morning, consistently over the past fortnight or more he was here, whether it was two, three or six o'clock in the morning. Talking of running hares, it was amazing to find how the Financial Secretary tried to stop democratic debate, not only trying to move this so quickly that it would go through on the nod, but racing in, in the hope of getting it all through without the hon. Member for West Ham, North having a chance to object. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I can say "object" much quicker than he can run through—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am giving the hon. Member a certain amount of latitude in making his speech, but he is moving an Amendment to the Motion. He must bring his arguments to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: With great respect, I am opposing the Motion and I am entitled to move my Amendment at any time. I am now speaking on the Motion which was formally moved by the Financial Secretary. Before I come to move my Amendment I can debate and give reasons why I oppose the Motion. I am putting forward as one of the reasons the shabby and under-hand manner in which the Government, in general, and the Minister, in particular, have tried to get this Motion through on the nod. I was explaining how they tried to do it again today. The Minister has not given any reasons; he has moved the Motion formally and I am giving reasons why I oppose it. I will, of course move my Amendments as and when I come to them, giving my reasons.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that it seemed to me that debate might most easily arise on the Amendments as I understood that the hon. Gentleman is not opposing the granting of a pension

to Mr. Speaker King in total but is merely quarrelling with the amount.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister has had his chance to get up and put his point of view. He purposely declined to do so, and I must ask him not to ask me to give way. He had his opportunity and he could have got up and explained his views.
I will now explain why what the hon. Gentleman assumes to be so is not the case. How does the hon. Gentleman know that I am not opposing Dr. King's pension. I am not concerned about the Opposition. I speak for myself. He must not jump to conclusions, and, with respect, neither must the Chair. The Chair is not entitled to say that I will not oppose the Motion, and, in fact, I am adducing reasons why I think it should be opposed.
One is the shabby way the Minister tried to rush to the Dispatch Box to try to prevent me saying "Object" and to prevent a debate. Day after day, night after night, week after week, the Government tried to prevent debate, but I can move more swiftly than the hon. Gentleman.
It is amazing how the Government can see these things go through on the nod with no debate or discussion. My object is to have good and thorough debate, and I am glad that the little subterfuge on the part of the Government has not worked out. They tried to closure the Consolidated Fund Bill on my Motion and then tried to slip this through after the Bill when they thought everyone would have gone home. I am glad that I have a House so that I can explain my views to hon. Members.
I recollect supporting Mr. Speaker King in one of his campaigns for old-age pensioners at a time when we were discussing Members' salaries. Horace King, Norman Dodds and Emrys Hughes said that they would refuse to take an increase in salaries until the old-age pensioners had had a pensions increase. They did not carry their threat into execution they drew their increased salaries. I did not support them to that extent, but I supported them in saying that old-age pensioners should then—it was in the days of the Labour Government—have an increase, as Members of Parliament should have had. Old-age pensioners and


others on welfare benefit are entitled to be considered, perhaps not before, but certainly at the same time as Horace King.
Last week or the week before, the Government said that they could not and would not increase old-age pensions until the autumn review, and they suggested that we had to await the outcome of the review. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the Leader of the House come into the Chamber. I said some not unkind things about him a little while ago. I am sure that he will read them in HANSARD.
I see no reason why old-age pensioners should have to wait until the autumn and the outcome of the review if, as is the case, Mr. Speaker King does not have to await a review of his case.
One cannot deal with the question of pensions and retirement without looking at the conditions of service and employment. Mr. Speaker King, who retired in June, received a salary of £8,500, plus £1,250 as a parliamentary allowance. Of this, the Treasury allowed him to deduct £4,000 a year as a tax-free expense. He had the benefit of a house which was free of rent and rates. He received fuel, heat, lighting, cleaning, furniture and all that goes with that, which, according to answers to Questions, was worth at least £3,000 or £4,000 a year. Unlike school caretakers and public building caretakers or others who have to live on the premises because of the nature of their job, he was not taxed on them as the people I have just mentioned are. I am also advised that he used to get a car, a chauffeur, garage, servicing and upkeep, which again was worth £2,000 a year tax free. He also got his secretarial assistance and facilities for Government hospitality, and so on. All this must total many thousands of pounds tax free.
The former Speaker was also able to travel the world, and did, under various auspices—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): When my hon. Friend replies to the specific point about the Speaker's pension I should not wish the hon. Gentleman to think that, because he does not necessarily refer to these various other facts—which the hon. Gentleman says are facts—about a

Speaker's emoluments, they are either necessarily accepted or correct.

Mr. Lewis: I wish that the Leader of the House had been here earlier, because he would have heard the fact—and it was a fact—that the Government declined to put forward their case. They declined to give reasons. Hence, I have had to make my own case. But earlier I paid tribute—the Leader of the House was not here, so I must now refer to this again as he has interjected—to Mr. Speaker King and the Library staff, because they had kindly given me the official facts and figures which I got from the Lawrence Report. I shall refer to the Lawrence Report later. It is all factually true and can be quoted. I can give the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse from the Lawrence Report. I shall have more to say on that later.
I was about to say that the former Speaker also had a number of opportunities for touring the world under various auspices—again with very little or no expense. This will have given Mr. Speaker King in his five and a half years—this is another point which I mentioned earlier when the Leader of the House was not here—less heavy expenses to meet from the salary which I have quoted, but will not quote again to the Leader of the House, from the Lawrence Report. Therefore, the former Speaker is not likely to be as hard pressed and in such difficult circumstances as some of these old-age pensioners and some of those on welfare benefits to whom I have referred.
I have mentioned a number of tax-free emoluments which are in the Lawrence Report. If the Lawrence Report is wrong, I am not to blame. They are quoted there.
It will be noticed that this Motion does not say that it is a pension. The previous ones were pensions. It says "annuity". I should like to know whether this is an annuity or a pension. If it is an annuity, is it tax free?
We know that the Chancellor introduced a new scheme for executives and company directors who, if they had no pension funds, could take out, through insurance companies, an annuity system of payment which would be tax free, but which would be on a contribution basis.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South): That is not so.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister will tell me whether it is or is not tax free.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is wrong.

Mr. Lewis: Assuming that I do not oppose the Motion and allow it to go through—at this stage I am trying to get my views across whether I should or should not oppose it—will Mr. Speaker King, in addition to his annuity, get that to which I think he is "entitled"—namely, his teacher's pension and his old-age retirement pension? Will he also be entitled to get a pension from the Members' Fund? Will he also be entitled to claim on the Members' Hardship Fund? He has paid into these funds, but he has not paid for this annuity. I am not suggesting that he will necessarily claim, but will he have the legal right to claim, his 6½ guineas tax-free expenses from the Lords? There have been some precedents for this. Shakespeare Morrison went on to a pension of £4,000 a year. It had originally been understood that he would draw that money and that was the end of the matter. But the Government appointed him to a sinecure as Governor-General of Australia at £10,000 a year on top. There was an uproar in the House —not led by me, incidentally—and he eventually voluntarily relinquished £2,000 of it and only drew £2,000 in addition to his Governor-General's salary.
When this figure was originally fixed at £4,000, it derived from the Lawrence Committee's investigations into Members: Ministers', former Prime Ministers' and former Lord Chancellors' salaries. That suggested a pension of £6,000, and Ministers' salaries were uplifted, but the then Government did not think the time opportune to put it up to £6,000. They reduced it to £4,000 because of inflation, high salary demands and the economic situation.
If that was a good reason then, do this Government now feel that there is no inflationary spiral and no worry about high wage rates? Do they therefore suggest that we should not worry and everything is all right? Former Lord Chancellors and Prime Ministers are still adopting the Lawrence Committee recommendations and are on, or can claim, £4,000 a year when they relinguish any State appointment or income. I do not suggest that, in addition to the salary, the Leader of the Opposition is getting

£4,000. He cannot get both, but any time he wants to retire he can claim £4,000, as can Lord Avon and Mr. Macmillan, assuming that they are still drawing: at least they can draw. After one day in office Lord Chancellors can immediately go on a pension of £4,000 a year.
The late Lord Kilmuir, formerly Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, went on a pension of £4,000 a year and immediately took a job as chairman of Plessey at £10,000 a year. Again there was a scream in the House, and he voluntarily declined to accept the £4,000. The point is that this was voluntary. There is no regulation that they should accept only the pension allocated to them. Therefore, I want to know whether or not, if this were agreed, Mr. Speaker King would then be able to take a job as a Governor-General or chairman of Plessey on top of his pension. If that is the case, as it was opposed previously on the same grounds I think that it would also be opposed now.
I have mentioned former Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors. They were allied to the former Mr. Speaker's rate of £4,000. I happen to be a member of three trade unions. I have been a trade unionist all my life and am proud of it. The present Government have attacked what they call escalation and wage applications, using comparability and relativity Are we to find, as I am dead certain will be the case, that if this proposal goes through to increase the £4,000 by 25 per cent. to £5,000, former Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors will say, "We were allied to the rate of the former Speaker of £4,000. It has now gone up to £5,000, and normal trade union practice means that we must now ask for an extra 25 per cent. in our pension"? Much as I hate to have to say if, if the Government's proposal were to go through I should find that they would have logic on their side, because if one pensioner's rate went up by 25 per cent. and the others were based upon that, there would be a case for them to argue that they should, in fairness, have the same treatment.
I have mentioned the Lawrence Committee, and the Leader of the House interposed. The fact is that the Leader of the House months ago said that he would set up a review body to consider


the salaries and conditions of Members of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is coming."] But the Leader of the House did not work with the same expedition for that as he did with Mr. Speaker King's Motion. He has not tried to get it done with the same haste.
When Mr. Speaker's emoluments, conditions of employment and pension were investigated by the same Lawrence Committee which investigated Members' salaries, Ministers' salaries, Ministers' pensions and all the rest—and, arising from that, his salary, conditions and pensions were settled. Why is Mr. Speaker King being contracted out? Why is he not put in with the review body which, the Leader of the House says, he will set up some time in the distant future?
I cannot see why it could not be left that there is to be a review body. I have mentioned two review bodies. The old-age pensioner is to have a review body in the autumn. The salary and conditions of Members of Parliament are to be review. Why cannot Dr. King, who was formerly treated on the same basis, be reviewed? He could go temporarily on to the Members' Fund, on which he is entitled to draw because he has contributed. Pending that, he could, no doubt, await the review body's decision.
I want to pay a sincere tribute to Horace King—whom I knew personally and with whom I worked—because he was a very good man. But he occupied the Chair for only five and a half years, not 33 years. I agree that he should get a pension; I am not against that. I am not, perhaps, against the £4,000 if I can be assured on the points that I have put forward. I cannot, however, understand the logic or fairness of saying that on a non-contributory basis he should get the equivalent of £900 per year for every year he served in office—that is, if it is based upon his earnings—or, to put it another way, 60 per cent. of his retiring salary. I tdoes not matter which way it is done, whether on an annual increment basis for years of service or on the basis of a percentage of salary. That is not logical, because he will be better off financially in retirement than if he had remained Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the Government understand this. Mr. Speaker King can well be better off

financially in retirement, if the Government's proposal goes through unopposed, than if he had remained Speaker.
I am pleased to pay my tribute to the great parliamentary record of Horace King. Like me, he came here in 1945.

Sir G. Nabarro: In 1950.

Mr. Lewis: Then he came here five years after I did. Dr. King worked hard here. He did a 5½year stint as Speaker. He gave great service to Parliament. However, other great Parliamentarians have also given 5½ years service but they have not been so fairly treated. Indeed, there is one great Parliamentarian whose virtues I now extol and whose name I shout out loud, namely the great and noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who did an enormous amount of work for Parliament, not for 5½ years, but for 48 years. Indeed, he is still serving Parliament. Lord Shinwell, after 48 years hard and diligent work in Parliament, gets the odd sum of not £900 per year of service but £900 in total.

Sir G. Nabarro: Derisory.

Mr. Lewis: After tax, £600.

Sir G. Nabarro: Derisory.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. John Gordon of the Sunday Express, in supporting my opposition to the Motion, said that politician do themselves very well on pensions. John Gordon is wrong. Some politicians —not all—do themselves well. Lord Shinwell—we affectionately knew him, and still know him, as "Manny" Shinwell—did an enormous job for Parliament and receives the handsome reward of £900 a year.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if Lord Shinwell had for 48 years contributed on a commercial basis outside the House to an insurance for a pension he would have received seven times as much in pension today as he has from successively mean Governments?

Mr. Lewis: I am obliged, although the hon. Gentleman has stolen my thunder. I shall go one better. If Lord Shinwell were treated as generously as it is proposed to treat Dr. King, he would get after 48 years at £900 a year a pension of £43,200. Everyone would say that that is a bit


farcical, but the analogy is there. Dr. King is to get £900 a year for each year of service. Lord Shinwell, at 48 times £900, would get £43,200 per year. Even if it were to be based on a percentage of the last year's earnings, such as Dr. King will have under this proposal, Lord Shinwell would get 60 per cent. of his then salary of £3,250—namely, £1,950 or about three times what he now gets.
I support the Government in their attitude when they say, "We must be careful. We must stop this escalation of demands and wage applications. We must ensure that other people do not get on the bandwagon." I read recently in the Press that there is a certain noble Lord—Lord Robens—who has resigned from a full-time job to take on two part-time jobs and that he is now negotiating a pension. What will happen if Lord Robens says, "Mr. Speaker King got £5,000 a year for doing five and a half years' service. I have done 10 years. He was getting £12,000 a year. I am getting £20,000. I deserve a pension of at least £10,000 a year; that is, on top of the £20,000 which, as a part-time employee of two concerns, I am able to earn."
We are constantly told that the trouble with the country is that the workers are always asking for more. The trouble is that the workers referred to in that context are those in the lower income groups like the dustmen, postmen, nurses, engineers, bricklayers and carpenters. Ministers from the Prime Minister down-wards are always telling them that they must not ask for more and that nothing can be granted above production levels lest inflation goes wild.
By raising this matter I am not getting at Horace King personally. I have also attacked increases granted to the higher-paid members of the Civil Service, the judges and the chairmen of nationalised boards. Some of them have been allowed to get 62½ per cent. Not only have I been here all night to raise this point but I have been here virtually every night for the past fortnight. I happened to tune in on my little pocket radio this morning and I heard a music hall song which I recall my late beloved father singing. One line struck me.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sing it to us, Arthur.

Mr. Lewis: I speak well but I do not sing at all well. The line went:

It's the rich wot gets the pleasures and the poor wot gets the blame.
That old cockney song sums up the position well. I trust that John Gordon, who I think is deputy editor of the Sunday Express, will take note of my remarks. If hon. Members were treated half as well as we propose to treat our former Speaker, we would not have much to complain about in John Gordon's comments.
A postal workers' strike is in progress. What is it all about? They are arguing about figures ranging from 8 per cent. to 10 per cent., or perhaps a little more. We are told that they are asking for too much. I want Tom Jackson to bear in mind that the Government set up Wilberforce to try to stop the power workers getting more than 10 per cent. They have adopted the same attitude towards other groups of workers.
They are, on the other hand, suggesting that, in addition to his £4,000 a year, this man should receive an increase of 25 per cent., giving him £100 a week. Meanwhile, the poor old Post Office worker wants £2 extra to make his money up to £16 a week. Will not many civil servants say that if a 25 per cent. rise is okay for one man it should be good enough for them? There might be a scream later if ex-Members, now retired, get an increase. I am told by a little bird that flies round this place that for months past the Treasury has opposed a proposition that former Members should get increases in their pensions. Obstacles have been put in the way, because the Treasury feels that the implementation of such a proposal would have a bad effect in the country.
It is amazing how, whenever there is a proposal likely to affect the salaries, conditions or pensions of Members of Parliament, it is always said that it will have a bad effect in the country. It is never said about judges, the chairmen of nationalised industries, higher-paid civil servants, or the Speaker.
I am told that the Treasury has been opposing a 20 per cent. increase for Members, although I understand that it will come through. But, if it comes along, the difference is that Members of Parliament have a contributory pension scheme, albeit a very poor one. As I have said, after 48 years' service, the maximum that a retiring Member can get is £900 a year.


If it comes about, it will be on a contributory basis. However, retiring Members of Parliament will not receive the same treatment as that now suggested for the Speaker. The pension of a Member of Parliament will not be based on 65 per cent. of the salary that he was getting or £900 per year on the basis of years of service.
I can make the House very happy. I can make the Chief Whip and the Government very happy. I can even make the Treasury happy. If I were to be offered the same pension rights as those being offered to Dr. King, I would go on pension tomorrow. The Government could get rid of me. I would have 26 years at £900 a year. It would pay me to go on pension rather than remain in the House. However, I do not believe that the Government will treat me or other hon. Members as fairly or as generously as they now propose to treat Dr. King.
Just now, the Leader of the House came into the Chamber and went out again, not denying the accuracy of my figures but saying that the Minister would not confirm them. However, I do not want him to confirm them. Any hon. Member who requires confirmation will find the figures in the Lawrence Report.
The former Speaker has been receiving an adequate salary. He cannot be as hard-pressed as some of our constituents. Many thousands of them find it difficult to manage. Some are permanently disabled. Some are receiving industrial injuries benefit, health benefits, retirement benefits, and so on. The Government are not acting with the same expedition in those instances as they are in this case, and I suggest that if the Government intend to single out certain better-paid people for preferential treatment they should realise that such actions cause trouble in the ranks of the trade unions.
As the Financial Secretary knows, I have tabled about 25 Motions, all of which are headed
Justice must not only be done but must obviously be seen to be done.
I have drawn attention to the 101 different cases where this Government have deliberately and with malice aforethought gone out of their way to assist those in

the higher income groups, who are better off and more able to look after themselves, more than they have those on lower incomes.
In view of the shabby way in which the Government have tried to "nod through" this proposal without public discussion and without attention being directed to it, may I ask whether the Bill will be so drawn that I shall be able in Committee to move Amendments to it? If I am assured of that, I shall think twice before moving my Amendments to the Motion, but if once the House has agreed to the principle of the £5,000 it is difficult for me to suggest Amendments to that amount, I shall have to continue my opposition to the Motion. I want to be assured that it will be possible to amend the Bill in Committee and that there will be adequate opportunity to do so and that the Government will not adopt any underhanded subterfuge and bring the matter forward at two or three o'clock in the morning, because it has an important bearing on wages, prices and dividends.
My constituents are dockers, engineers, bricklayers and carpenters, the lower-paid workers. The Government have increased the cost of a television licence. I do not blame them, and it may well have been the responsibility of the former Government. But my constituents cannot be expected to pay that and increased fares and pay more for gas and electricity and other costs if increased pensions are refused to them but paid to the former Speaker.
I invite the Financial Secretary to come to the street markets in my constituency, to Rathbone Place and to the Angel, where he will find old-age pensioners buying scrag end of lamb, just a few bones to make a stew and try to get a decent meal. They will be discussing pennies and halfpennies, not because of decimalisation, but because that is all they can afford for a meal. They cannot afford to buy a pound of carrots costing just a few coppers and so they ask whether they can buy half a pound, and the stallholders, being the good Cockneys they are, will say, "You may have half a pound, although I do not usually sell in that weight" and then give a pound, but charge for only a half. I am talking not about buying caviar or rump steak but about buying potatoes and carrots.


As hon. Members know, people blame not the Government but their Members, and they ask me, "Is it right that you refused us a pension at the same time as you gave an extra £1,000 a year to the former Speaker who was already getting £80 plus a week?" They ask: Is that fair or reasonable? Is it Christian? I do not think it is. I ask the Financial Secretary to bear this in mind.
I now formally beg to move to leave out £5,000' and insert '£4,000'.

10.7 a.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Although the House as a whole understands that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) speaks only for himself and is entirely alone in the line that he is taking, it might be misunderstood outside if on this Motion the House relied simply on what I have no doubt will be the devastating reply of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. It is right that someone should speak from these Benches and express warm enthusiasm for the proposal put forward in the Motion, and complete hostility to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, your predecessor was a loyal and devoted servant of this House and spent himself in its service, in what—and at this particular moment I do not think you will disagree with me—is one of the most exhausting offices to which a man can be called. It is a fact that your predecessor was a devoted servant of this House, and it would be wrong and would seem ungenerous on the part of the House if this House were even to appear to demur against providing what is, in modern terms, the normal provision for a man who has held such an office.
There is a certain irony in this, that this foray not only should be launched against the first occupant of your office to come from the Labour Party—and a very worthy representative of that party indeed—but that the opposition should be linked with the needs of retirement pensioners. Before he went to the Chair, and in the Chair, your predecessor was particularly concerned about the needs of such people. No one could challenge him in his care and concern for the old, the sick and the retired.
Their case, real as it is, is nothing to do with this provision. I am sure

that the Financial Secretary will deal with such arguments as emerged during the course of the speech which we have had to endure. I will deal only with two. The hon. Member saw fit to refer to the remuneration received by Mr. Speaker King during his tenure of office and suggested by that reference, accurate or not, that there was no need to make proper pension provision. It will be within the knowledge of the House that the occupant of your office is exposed, as a result of holding that office, to very heavy expenses indeed.
It is again ironical in these circumstances that when your predecessor retired hon. Members on all sides paid tribute to the generous hospitality that they had received at his hands. Everyone knows that the occupant of Speaker's House is compelled, whether he likes it or not, to undertake a great burden, much of which may be very dreary to him, by way of entertaining. It is extremely improbable that he is other than out of pocket over the whole thing.
There was this extraordinary argument that this is a 25 per cent. increase on the Lawrence Committee recommendations.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not say that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member said precisely that. If he will look in HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that it is so. He said that the Government cannot possibly then object to people seeking 8 per cent. or 10 per cent., but if he had paused for a moment he would perceive that the Government objection is to 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. being given to people who received increases last year. The Lawrence Committee's recommendation was made in 1964. It in fact recommended more than is now being given. But even taking the current 1964 figure of £4,000, the increase of 25 per cent. over that is spread over six years, and so amounts only to something like 4 per cent. per annum.
There was a complete lack of substance and reality in the speech with which the hon. Member detained us for a period not short of one hour.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Exactly one hour.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the Financial Secretary, who says "Exactly one hour", for a speech full


of the half truths, irrelevancies, and illogicalities of just the character to which I referred.
I have one criticism of the Motion with which I hope my hon. Friend will deal. No doubt it follows custom that the provision for Mrs. King, should Mr. Speaker King predecease her, amounts to only one third of the pension which the House will bestow upon her husband. This may follow precedent, but modern pension practice normally provides at any rate half-rate pension for a widow.
I have found that in public affairs we as a country treat widows very badly indeed, relatively worse than their husbands. It is difficult for a woman who has been bereaved and in that state of shock suddenly and drastically to have to curtail the standard of life she has enjoyed while her husband has been alive. One third is mean and inadequate. I would like the Government to consider following contemporary pension practice, which provides at least one-half pension. In many cases it is two-thirds. The House as a whole would feel that any inadequacy in the treatment of Mrs. King, whose kindness we remember with warm enthusiasm, would strike a jarring note.
I give my enthusiastic support for proper and prompt provision for your predecessor. I am sorry that the action of the hon. Member for West Ham, North has delayed its being enacted with a promptitude which would have had a certain appropriateness about it but I hope it will go through this morning.

10.13 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has delivered some brief and pungent comments on the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Perhaps I may therefore take it as relieving me of any obligation to reiterate it, and on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends and the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members opposite I would say that we would wholly dissociate ourselves from the strictures of the hon. Member for West Ham, North.
It would be helpful to remind the House of the nature of our proceedings. Apart from a brief reference in the end of his speech, I gained the impression

that the hon. Member for West Ham, North did not understand it. We are engaged, Mr. Speaker, on a Ways and Means Resolution on which I hope to be able to found a Bill to provide for pensions for your predecessor and for his widow. I hope that the Bill will be introduced at the end of this debate. It will have to go through the usual process of Second Reading and Committee stage. Therefore, it is entirely to ignore the reality of the matter to argue, as the hon. Gentleman sought to argue, that night after night he had to object to the introduction of this Ways and Means Resolution to have his say, for what it is worth. He knows it to be wrong because at the end of his speech he started asking questions about the Bill, and having first indicated that he would not move his Amendment, he moved it. The hon. Gentleman proceeds in a most extraordinary way.
The hon. Member asked two questions about the Bill. The first was whether it would be amendable. The hon. Gentleman may in the normal course table Amendments which are in order. Secondly, he asked about finding time for the Bill. That must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has taken note of the hon. Gentleman's points.
I do not believe that I am alone in approaching debates of this nature with some degree of diffidence. They are sensitive debates, dealing as they do with individuals known and widely respected on both sides of the House. But the hon. Gentleman, as was his right, raised a number of issues, and I will do my best to answer them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames completely punctured the false allegation which was the sole foundation of the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North; namely, that we were granting a 25 per cent. pension increase over and above the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: No.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman indicates that he did not say that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and I distinctly heard him say that the figure of £4,000 was fixed on the basis of the Lawrence


Report. That was quite untrue. The Lawrence Report recommended £6,000, and the proposed pension is £1,000 less than the amount recommended by the Lawrence Report.
The figure of £4,000 stood for well over 100 years. It was in 1832—the year of the Reform Bill—that the figure of —4,000 became established for a Speaker's pension. It remained at £4,000 until 1959.

Sir G. Nabarro: What was income tax then?

Mr. Jenkin: My impression is that there was not any. It ended at the end of the Napoleonic wars and was not reintroduced until 20 years afterwards.
In 1964 the Lawrence Committee was set up to consider the remuneration of Ministers and hon. Members. It recommended that the Speaker's salary should be increased from £5,000 to £12,000—the level for senior Ministers, also recommended in the Report—and that his pension should be £6,000. However, the House will recollect, and certainly Ministers and former Ministers will keenly recollect, that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), the then Prime Minister, decided, in accepting the generality of the Lawrence Committee's recommendations, that increases for the Prime Minister and for Ministers should be abated by half on the assumption that the other half would follow later. Mr. Speaker was covered by this decision, and instead of an increase of £7,000 being made in his salary, only half that was awarded, and his salary has been £8,500 since.
The Committee also recommended that Mr. Speaker's pension should follow as of right, but both parties have felt it more appropriate to follow the traditional pattern and to vote the pension in a separate Act at the time of each retirement. But the amount is to be fixed on exactly the same principle. The Lawrence Committee recommended a £2,000 increase. Half of that is £1,000. Thus we get the figure of £5,000. Therefore, for the hon. Gentleman to argue, as he did throughout his speech, that somehow the provision which the Bill will make for Mr. Speaker King represents a 25 per cent. increase on what went before is entirely wide of the mark. On the contrary, the amount is £1,000 a year less than was recommended by the Lawrence Commit-

tee over six years ago. It is right that the public should be aware of that.
The House will remember with sadness that Sir Harry Hylton-Foster died in office; but the then Government—our predecessors—decided that it was appropriate to fix his widow's pension by reference to what the Speaker's pension would have been following the principles which I have just enunciated. That was the first precedent.
The Resolution, and the Bill which I am seeking to introduce today if the Resolution is accepted—as I hope it will be—by fixing £5,000 as the former Speaker's pension, do no more than apply the principle which was established in 1965 by the previous Administration.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was excessive. I have no doubt that he would wish—indeed, his Amendment, which he moved formally at the end of his speech, seeks—to return to the figure fixed in 1832. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing that all the other categories of people to whom he referred in his long speech should return to the levels of remuneration which were appropriate in 1832. If so, I suggest that he stands up and says so.
It is invidious to compare the office of Mr. Speaker with any other office or profession. The office of Speaker of the House of Commons is unique, and the amount to be fixed for his remuneration and pension must, in the last resort, be a matter of judgment. I have explained how the £5,000 was reached. In present circumstances, and for the reasons which I have stated, the Government believe that it is right.
The hon. Gentleman asked: is it an annuity or a pension? It is a pension.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it is tax free. No, it is not.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Speaker King will get his teacher's pension. That must be a matter between Dr. King and his superannuation fund.
As to Mr. Speaker King's retirement pension, that must depend on his contributions.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Speaker King would be entitled to a pension from the Members' Pension Fund. No. When Mr. Speaker takes


office, he leaves the Members' Pension Fund.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Speaker King would be entitled to a pension from the Members' Hardship Fund. That could not possibly be relevant, because it exists to help Members in indigent circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Speaker King would be entitled to claim what as he described as the six and a half guineas per day tax-free expenses. The hon. Gentleman has persisted, month after month, through dozens of Questions, the cost of which I cannot begin to guess, to misunderstand the nature of the payment made to noble Lords in another place. They are entitled to reimbursement of expenses actually incurred—

Mr. Lewis: I asked about Members of this House.

Mr. Jenkin: I am talking about members of another place. They are entitled to reimbursement of expenses actually incurred up to the level of six pounds and fifty pence a day.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of references to Lords Chancellors and Prime Ministers, and indulged in that curious kind of distorted egalitarianism which somehow is able to compare Mr. Speaker with the old-age pensioners but classes Members of Parliament with old-age pensioners and demands increases in the pensions of Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind where he stands. I do not pretend to understand how his mind works in these matters.
I turn to one question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames about the pension which would be paid to Mr. Speaker King's wife should she survive him. This is fixed, and has been since 1959, when the widow's pension first became payable at a third of the pension. The figure in the Resolution is £1,667 per annum. This figure of a third was considered appropriate in 1959 because that was the normal public service practice. It applies to the Prime Minister, to the Lord Chancellor, and generally in the public service. It was felt right to follow precedent in 1959, and again in 1965, when the House voted a pension for Lady Hylton-Foster

on her husband's death in office. On balance, I think that it was right that it should be followed in the present Bill.
I entirely take the force of my right hon. Friend's argument that a third is a figure which no longer represents the generality of provision, either in public or in private occupations. It would seem that this was pre-eminently a matter for consideration by the review body which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced on 4th December would be competent—it would have a reference made to it—to consider the whole question of Ministers' and Members' remunerations and pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before leaving that point, and although I accept that this is no doubt an appropriate matter for the review body, would my hon. Friend, before introducing the Bill and before the Government reach a final decision on this matter, consider whether practice in other and analogous fields has not changed in recent years? Whereas in 1959 widowhood provision was quite a rare part of any pension scheme, today provision up to a half or indeed two-thirds is now a regular practice. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the Government in this respect to fall behind the usual practice. He will find, I think, if he goes into the matter that even in matters closely related to the public service a half is the usual practice.

Mr. Jenkin: I take very strong note of what my right hon. Friend has said, and will undertake to consider this between now and the Committee stage, to see whether a change would be appropriate. But I cannot give any wider undertaking. I see the strength of the argument, and it is one with which many right hon. and hon. Members will have a great deal of sympathy.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West): I am sure that there are hon. Members on both sides who share the view of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on this point. It seems that a widow's pension should be some proportion of her husband's salary whether she happens to be the widow of a civil servant or someone who is not a civil servant. But all we need at this stage from the hon. Gentleman is an assurance that it will be possible, notwithstanding


the usual technicalities of the Queen's recommendations and so on, for us to discuss it in Committee and possibly decide it on a free vote of the House. I do not think that this is a partisan issue.

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely take the point. I understand that this is perfectly open to be discussed in Committee, and no doubt opportunities will be found for this. I have indicated some degree of sympathy with the general argument. The question will turn on whether it is appropriate that we should innovate on this Bill, or whether we should await the recommendations of the review body to which the whole question is to be referred.
There may be other issues. I hope that I have answered all the relevant questions of the hon. Member for West Ham, North. I think that he recognised that most arguments could equally well have been put on Second Reading or in Committee rather than on the Resolution.
We have had what I think one newspaper described as one of the longest runs in the Westminster farce in the last few weeks by trying to get this Resolution introduced—[Interruption.] Indeed, and in the end the hon. Gentleman has forced a debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, every word of which could have been said in the ordinary course on the Bill.
However, the hon. Member acknowledged that one thing which no one enters politics for in Britain is to get rich. Many of our leading statesmen leave little or nothing when they die, as we have had reason to know recently. The attitude of the House towards the remuneration and pensions of our own Members could by no stretch of the imagination be called extravagant. It is nevertheless fitting that those who serve the House in that most arduous and demanding of offices, the office which you hold, Mr. Speaker, should be entitled to retain in retirement a standard of living which reflects not only the dignity of the office which they once held but also the gratitude of the House which they served. That is the purpose of the Bill which I seek to introduce, founded upon the Resolution which I now commend to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wish formally to move his other Amendment?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: No, Sir.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the annual sum of £5,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for the payment of an annuity to the right hon. Horace Maybray King, lately Speaker of the House of Commons, and that, if Una King, his wife, survives him, the annual sum of £1,667 be granted as aforesaid, for the payment of an annuity to her.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, Mr. Reginald Maudling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Patrick Jenkin.

MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT BILL

Bill to settle and secure annuities upon the Right Honourable Horace Maybray King, and after his death upon his wife, Una King, in consideration of his eminent services, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time this day and to be printed. [Bill 97]

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a Second tune this day.

Orders of the Day — LOW INCOME FAMILIES

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

10. 31 a.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West): I am most grateful for this opportunity to debate the disturbing increase in the number of wage earners in full-time work earning beneath the level of their supplementary benefit entitlement. The fact


that in a technologically advanced and supposedly affluent society hundreds of thousands of families are forced to subsist beneath the State-accepted poverty line, despite the breadwinner's submission to a full week's work at tedious and often demoralising employment, puts at issue the whole question of social justice in our society as well as the efficiency, or even the validity, of the structure of incentives underpinning our entire economic system.
That the number of these families may be growing fast is a cruel reflection on the unfettered growth of inequalities within the capitalist system. That the increase may in part directly flow from deliberate Government policy is a matter for most searching analysis, followed by urgent and resolute action.
Fragmentary though the evidence certainly is, I believe that it is enough for one fact to stand out unmistakably, namely, that throughout the last two decades, irrespective of the colour of the Government, the number of the working poor has continued to climb remorselessly. By reworking the figures produced by Professors Townsend and Abel-Smith from their examination of Ministry of Labour budget surveys, it can be calculated, I believe, that in 1953 the number of households in which the breadwinner was in full-time work yet earning less than the national assistance scale rate plus rent appropriate to his family rose to, perhaps, about 35,000, comprising about 170,000 persons.
The application of similar reworking techniques to figures drawn by the same authors from Family Expenditure Survey data in 1960 reveals that working households in these same income categories had by them grown to, perhaps, 65,000, involving a total of 300,000 persons.
By 1966, the official Ministry of Social Security Reports, "Circumstances of Families", demonstrated that the number of households, including single-parent families, living beneath the new supplementary benefit level plus rent had mounted to about 190,000, embracing about 900,000 persons.
As recently reported by Mr. Frank Field, the director of the Child Poverty Action Group, in The Times of 23rd January, the figures put forward by the

Secretary of State for Social Services himself on the Second Reading of the Family Income Supplements Bill on 10th November last—this is col. 217 of HANSARD—suggest that the rise in the number of the working poor countinues unabated. The right hon. Gentleman said that the family income supplement would help 110,000 couples with children, excluding the wage-stopped, and 54,000 single persons with children, but he went on to say—this is cols. 226, 228 and 230—that the new benefit would help over half the households below the supplementary benefit level. Further, he said—this is col. 227—that
the Measure brings help to only between one-half and one-third of working households below the supplementary benefit level".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 227.]
I take it that that was a mistake, and I shall be glad to have confirmation of that in due course.
Even on a more conservative basis, however, the Minister seemed to indicate that the number of working poor had risen by last year to about 300,000 households, comprising, perhaps, 1,300,000 persons. Moreover, since the Secretary of State's estimates of earnings clearly related to the supplementary benefits levels existing prior to the latest increase on 2nd November last, the number of full-time workers forced to subsist below the State poverty line must be still greater today, and I believe that the total of members of their families must now be steadily approaching 1½ million, or 3 per cent. of the entire population.
It must be admitted at once that, while the estimates I have given have been calculated from the most precise material available, they are indicative only due to the margin of error arising from comparing data compiled by different methods and requiring a variety of technical adjustments and assumptions. Their status should, perhaps, be seen as informed guesses. However, having entered that caveat, I insist that the evidence is steady enough and consistent enough to render the picture of the general trend irrefutable.
It is a sobering but undeniable truth that the working poor have become poorer under Administrations of both parties. Above all, both the scale of the problem today, touching, perhaps, one in every


40 persons in this country, and the speed of development of work-poverty—almost a tenfold increase in two decades—are an afront to the conscience of any civilised nation.
Some of the reasons for this shameful situation are writ deep into our industrial system. The Incomes Data Services report of 19th August last year revealed that low-income workers not only receive much smaller awards than the better paid but the gap between awards for them is much longer as well. While many groups of skilled workers now frequently seek a second rise within any 12-month period, over half the low-paid covered by that report had to wait well over 12 months. Canteen workers, for example, had to wait 22 months for an increase, café workers 24 months, and public house workers 40 months. Indeed, since July, 1965, canteen workers have had one pay increase of 8 per cent., yet prices during that time have increased 20 per cent.
What do the Government propose to do to channel wage awards disproportionately to the lower-paid and also to ensure that the gaps between awards are geared in their favour rather than against their interests?
More specifically, the Government cannot escape responsibility for themselves partly aggravating this desperate problem of wage poverty. I do not refer here merely to the fact that central and municipal government notoriously employ the largest number of low-paid workers in this country, though I shall at the same time be glad to know what the Government propose to do to reverse that depressing situation. Nor am I referring here to the fact that by tipping the unemployment scales towards the one million mark the Government are inevitably hitting hardest the least skilled and lowest paid who are all most likely to go to the wall first. I refer, rather, to the deliberate choice of the Government to concentrate their policy on de-escalating what they regard as inflationary wage claims exclusively on the public sector. Since it is well known that the lowest paid are particularly to be found in this area of the economy, such a policy can only result in pushing the lower paid directly into poverty.
The truth of this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that many groups of

workers in the last year who obtained wage awards which the Government now reject as inflationary were still, at the lower grades, if they had average-size families, left below the supplementary benefit level.
I can illustrate this by giving a few examples. Of the 50,000 pottery workers who obtained an 11 per cent. increase and then got £11 a week, those with only one child were beneath the State poverty line. The 350,000 farm workers got 16 per cent., but with three or more children they would still be in poverty. With the same size family were some of the 200,000 retail co-operative workers who got 20 per cent.
About 53,000 telephonists got 12 per cent., but they were still in poverty if they had four or more children, and with a similar size family so were some of the 100,000 textile workers who were awarded 10 per cent. The same applied to some of the 71,000 paper and board workers, who got 11 per cent., and some of the 300,000 miners who got 12 per cent. Even some of the 120,000 who obtained a huge 30 per cent. rise were still in poverty if they had five children.
Perhaps the point is spelled out most forcibly by saying that if the 280,000 railway men with a basic £15 4s. a week were to obtain a 10 per cent. rise currently, those on basic rates would still be in poverty if they had four or more children.
The present situation is, therefore, desperate enough to call for urgent remedies. I am, fundamentally, asking how the Government propose to prevent their anti-inflationary policies from biting hardest on the most vulnerable sections of the community and so accelerating the already deeply disquieting phenomenon of mass wage poverty.
Will the Government put in hand a policy for incomes—call it what they will—which will disproportionately assist the lower paid workers? In particular, will the Government begin to replace the tyranny of percentages which threaten to make the poverty of the working poor permanent and absolute? Will they reconsider their commitment to raise family allowances, since by this means alone can it be adequately ensured, without the barrier of a means test, that the low paid


are lifted out of poverty without disincentive to their earning power?
Since our information on the whole crucial question of wage poverty is still regretably fragmentary and inchoate, will the Government institute a standing commission on poverty to monitor the facts, particularly regarding the wage system in relation to family responsibilities, and to make recommendations until this scar is finally erased from our national life?

10.43 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): I acknowledge the importance of the subject which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has raised, and I appreciate his sincerity and interest in the issue.
I hope he will forgive me if I say that I found the terms of the subject he wishes to raise rather imprecise. There must be few, if any, single people or childless married couples working full-time who are earning less than the supplementary benefit level, and I question whether even the hon. Gentleman, through his researches, could find the evidence of a disturbing increase in their numbers. I assume, therefore, that the intention was to express concern about the number of families with children living below the supplementary benefit level where the breadwinner is in full-time work.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend said on Second Reading of the Family Income Supplements Bill that there were 110,000 couples with children and 54,000 single persons with children in full-time work but below the supplementary benefit level? That is the nature of the problem.

Mr. Bryan: Nevertheless, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the terms of his subject for this Adjournment debate are somewhat sweeping and that the area in which he is interested is a far narrower one. I will try to restrict my remarks to that area.
What is meant by the supplementary benefit level? A family with the breadwinner in work may be said to be living below supplementary benefit level if its net income is less than its needs. The income should be that of man and wife, including, of course, family allowances;

earnings should be those actually received, less statutory deductions and the cost of travelling to and from work. The needs based on the rates approved by Parliament, should take account of the number and ages of dependent children and actual housing costs. It is clear, therefore, from this oversimplified description that there is no uniform supplementary benefit level applying to all wage-earners or even to all wage-earners with families of the same size.
In this context, family incomes must be compared with family needs, including housing costs. Family incomes by themselves do not provide the measure of the number of people living below supplementary benefit level, and this is even more true of wages data which do not even fully reflect family incomes. For example, wages data may relate only to basic wage rates and not to actual earnings received, and they take no account of subsidiary occupations or wives' earnings.
The report entitled "Circumstances of Families" by the then Ministry of Social Security estimated the numbers living below supplementary benefit level in 1966. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is anxious to provide more up-to-date information, and his officials have for some time been working on an analysis of family expenditure survey data with a view to producing reliable estimates.
Anybody familiar with the earlier report will recognise how difficult art undertaking this is, and that it would be irresponsible of the Government to publish any figures until they are satisfied that they are as reliable as they can he made. I can say, however, that the studies to date provide no evidence to support the conclusion that there has been an increase since 1966 in the number of wage-earners whose families are living below supplementary benefit level.
In considering the validity of statistics, it is important to wait until this inquiry, which will be the deepest and certainly the most comprehensive we have had, is completed, and then we can have a meaningful debate; though this small debate is, of course, useful. Hon. Members who are interested in this whole sphere will wish to have a bigger debate at that time.


I must briefly comment on the recent estimates made by the Child Poverty Action Group, which received wide publicity. We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been closely associated with those findings, and he repeated some of them today. The Child Poverty Action Group calculations start from a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services during the Second Reading on the Family Income Supplements Bill that it would help between one-half and one-third of working families below the supplementary benefit level. However, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Health and Social Security later in the proceedings on the Bill, this was a slip. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm. The correct proportion, which was given by my right hon. Friend on a number of other occasions in the debate, is over one-half. However, the Child Poverty Action Group has chosen to base its calculation on the incorrect figure, it appears. It then makes the more series mistake of assuming that all the families who receive family income supplement will be below supplementary benefit level; and it thus reaches the conclusion that the number of families now living below supplementary benefit level will be between two and three times the number stated by my right hon. Friend to benefit from family income supplement.
In fact, many families who receive family income supplement will be above supplementary benefit level; because, as I have explained, supplementary benefit level is not a fixed amount but varies according to the individual's rent. This means, broadly, that the people above supplementary benefit level who benefit from family income supplement will be people with below-average rents; and people below supplementary benefit level who do not benefit from F.I.S. will be people with above average rents. The latter will stand to benefit from the national rent rebate scheme recently announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Consequently, the calculations which the Child Poverty Action Group and the hon. Member have made are as they stand entirely fallacious. There is no reliable evidence to support the figures or the statements the hon. Gentleman has made.
Going a little further afield, family poverty amongst the working population does not arise only from low pay. It is connected, but it is not necessarily the ruling factor. It can arise also from family circumstances such as the size of the family, and from exceptional expenditure on, for example, housing costs. It is therefore possible for a worker to receive a reasonably high wage but still to be below supplementary benefit levels because he has a large family or is paying a high rent in relation to his income. It would be quite unreasonable to expect employers to pay wages according to the varying family circumstances of his employees.
We need, therefore, a broad strategy of attack on the problem of family poverty, and cannot expect that increasing the wages of the lowest paid will solve the problem in itself.
Although I have had to take issue with some of the statistics and arguments the hon. Member has used, I would not want him to think that we are at all complacent about the problems of low pay and family poverty. Indeed the action we have taken demonstrates our determination to tackle this problem. Anybody who knows my right hon. Friend will acknowledge the great sincerity of his approach to this subject.
First, we introduced at the first opportunity the Family Income Supplements Bill designed to deal with the most urgent need of bringing assistance to the poorest families and bringing it as quickly as possible. It was estimated on the basis of figures available in November that F.I.S. will provide benefit for 134,000 couples with children including 24,000 unemployed on wage stop, and about 54,000 single persons with children—a total of 190,000 households containing about 500,000 children.
In other fields, too, we have framed our policies with the needs of the poorest members of the community very much in mind. There is our new housing policy, including the proposal to provide a national rent allowance scheme for all tenants of public and private housing except in the furnished sector. This will directly assist those families on low incomes faced with large rents which F.I.S. itself cannot tackle.


Then there is the more generous exemption limits for families on low incomes from the health and education charges—again demonstrating our concern that selective assistance should be provided to those who most need it.
I should like to conclude by dealing specifically with the problem of low wages. This is not a new problem. It has always been with us. Indeed, there has been a remarkable stability over the years in the distribution of earnings of adult male manual workers. It is not the case that the lower paid in terms of wages alone are now any worse off in relation to the average wage earner than in past years, but neither has their position improved.
At this moment the N.B.P.I. is at work on three references specifically concerned with the problem of low pay in sectors where the average level of pay is low—contract cleaning, laundries and dry cleaning, and N.H.S. ancillary workers, which is really what the hon. Gentleman referred to. We hope that the reports on these references will improve our understanding of the causes of low pay on an industry by industry basis and the ways of tackling the problem. I understand that the board will complete its work before the end of March and publication of the reports should follow in April.
The previous Government sought to improve the position of the lowest paid through their statutory prices and incomes policy. I am not seeking to score party political points today, but despite the good intentions expressed in successive White Papers on prices and incomes policy, the fact is that there is no evidence which suggests that the policy in practice brought about any significant improvement in the position of the lowest paid groups.
There have been suggestions that low pay can be tackled through the introduction of a national minimum wage. We are considering this possibility in the light of the report of the inter-departmental committee published in 1969. But, as our predecessors found, this is a complex issue with important economic and social implications which needs very careful consideration. Factors such as

the effect on unemployment amongst the lower paid and the extent of the repercussions on the pay of other groups have to be taken into account. It is by no means a clear-cut issue, as the hon. Member will realise from his study of the detailed report published two years ago.
Others have suggested that the relative position of the lowest paid can be improved through the usual processes of collective bargaining by the negotiating of higher percentage increases for lower paid workers than for other groups. The T.U.C. has indicated that it considers that at the present time the position of the lowest paid should be improved through negotiations rather than through a statutory minimum wage.
We have sympathy with this approach, subject to one important point. The relative position of the lowest paid workers can be improved only if higher paid groups of workers are prepared to see the narrowing of differentials and do not put in claims for percentage increases in pay identical to the large percentage increases won by lower paid workers. Such a leap-frogging process cannot improve the position of the lowest paid. It can only be self-defeating and aggravate the inflationary process, leading to rising prices which hit particularly hard at the lowest paid workers.
This brings me to my final point. The Government's broad economic objective is to bring about a more rapid increase in growth and in the advance of real earnings and standards of life. But first we need to reduce the present excessive rates of increase in money earnings so that our growth prospects are not put at risk by rising prices. No group of workers stands to gain more than the lowest paid from the curbing of wage cost inflation, for the lowest paid tend to be in a weak bargaining position. They suffer most from the arbitrary redistribution of income caused by the inflationary spiral of excessive wage increases and rising prices. And no group stands to gain more than the lowest paid from faster growth and the additional real resources which become available to tackle the problem of family poverty.
We are determined to tackle the problem of family poverty over the lifetime


of the Parliament, as we pledged before the election. We have taken the first steps in that process; and our studies of possible further steps may provide other lines of development.
Within the wages field we shall be considering the best way of tackling the problem of low pay in the light of the N.B.P.I. reports and our own studies of the possibility of a national minimum

wage. And our general economic policy of curbing wage cost inflation as a basis for faster growth will operate directly to the benefit of those with relatively low earnings.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock a.m. on Tuesday, 16th February.